EPO's Central Staff Committee on Fourth Technical Meeting, Two Days Before First of (At Least) 4 Winter Strikes at the Second-Largest European Institution
Older: Almost 1,600 EPO Employees Went on Strike Last Week
Next up:
The EPO's Central Staff Committee wrote to staff a few days ago. In 6 days from now the staff goes on strike again. This message from the Committee is related to that (this matter is urgent not just for staff). "Dear Colleagues," they said. "The “future orientations on the salary adjustment procedure” will be on the agenda of the next meeting of the Council on 18 and 19 March 2026. The simulations of the new salary adjustment procedure over the 12-year period 2014−2025 show a severe loss of purchasing power in double digits for all sites. A fourth technical meeting took place on 28 January 2026. In preparation of the meeting, the administration had sent an amended proposal introducing a one-off lump-sum compensation when the yearly result of the salary adjustment procedure is below national inflation HICP. Read more in the fourth meeting report."
The report was leaked to us, so today we can reproduce it here for all to see. Our comments are set aside until the end.
Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité Central du PersonnelMunich, 11-02-2026
sc26015cpFuture Orientations on the Salary Adjustment Procedure
Report on the Fourth Technical Meeting of
28 January 2026The “future orientations on the salary adjustment procedure” will be on the agenda of the next meeting of the Council on 18 and 19 March 2026. The simulations of the new salary adjustment procedure over the 12-year period 2014−2025 show a severe loss of purchasing power in double digits for all sites. A fourth technical meeting took place on 28 January 2026. In preparation of the meeting, the administration had sent an amended proposal introducing a one-off lump-sum compensation when the yearly result of the salary adjustment procedure is below national inflation HICP. This paper reports on the content of discussions.
The EPO departs from basic principles of remuneration
The main goal of a salary adjustment procedure is to ensure the maintenance of purchasing power. The two basic principles of remuneration policies among International Organisations are:
1) to maintain purchasing power i.e. the value of salaries and benefits, with purchasing power parities (PPPs) measuring the evolution of the prices of goods and services at specific locations relative to a reference (e.g. Brussels indexed on national HICP)
2) to ensure parallelism with wage inflation of civil servants (net of local inflation) via a specific indicator
No other International Organisation uses a “financial sustainability” principle on growth of salary mass with an arbitrary reference.
Lump-sum compensation in case the yearly adjustment is below national inflation HICP
During the meeting, the administration presented an amended proposal introducing lump-sum compensation in case the yearly adjustment is below national inflation HICP.
The staff representation requested the reasons for this amendment.
The administration replied that the yearly adjustment might not be sufficient to cover increases of costs of living at national level on that year (national inflation HICP). The difference would be compensated via a top-up amount which could be paid on a monthly basis.
The staff representation noted that the salary scales would not be correspondingly corrected. Staff representation asked whether the lump-sum compensation would take into account national inflation HICP of that year or also include any difference with national inflation HICP of the previous.
The administration clarified that the lump-sum compensation would be paid for the difference with national inflation HICP of the year and that year only, i.e. it would not take into account the difference with national inflation HICP of the previous year.
The staff representation asked the administration to confirm that the compensation would be an annual lump-sum spread over 12 months. The administration confirmed.
The staff representation stated that such a mechanism would be completely insufficient in addressing the problem acknowledged by the administration – that an adjustment calculated by their proposed method would not cover the change in costs of living in the country of employment. Giving just one year's worth of compensation is a mere drop in the ocean compared to the losses that are generated for every single remaining year of a staff member's career and every year in pension.
The staff representation also noted that the amended proposal is a regression. First, the new mechanism increases complexity by using yet another indicator, namely national inflation HICP, which is not as relevant as the purchasing power parity, which is city-based and calculated for the specific places of employment. As an example, the difference between the costs of living in Vienna and national inflation HICP in Austria can be very important. Second, this new mechanism is legally risky as it would break the purchasing power parity. The Office seems not to have learnt the lessons from the currently running legal cases.
The administration replied they understood staff representation would like a more favourable salary adjustment procedure and in particular a return to the historical underlying methodology. However, the mandate from the President contains limitations, the main one being “financial sustainability”. They pretended they heard the arguments of the staff representation on purchasing power and now came back with a correcting mechanism based on cash and not affecting long-term liabilities. They reproached the staff representation for making “use and abuse of the costs of living argument in front of staff” and for refusing at the same time an offer from the Office to address the problem. They again reiterated their fear that there would be a discrepancy between the calculated adjustment and local inflation, and stated that this measure was an attempt to address the issue based on cash, and therefore not affecting long-term liabilities.
The staff representation strongly disagreed and insisted that a one-off lump-sum compensation cannot make up for an erosion of the salary scales. Nobody can pretend this is the case and everyone in the meeting knows it. Staff representation asked about the impact of the lump-sum on the pensions and whether the lump-sum would be tax-free and how.
The administration replied they did not know yet how the lump-sum would impact the pensions.
The staff representation asked whether the administration could find any other International Organisation making use of the same proposed mechanism.
The administration did not reply to the question and attempted to create a diversion by saying that in the private sector employers do not commonly give their employees compensation for inflation.
The staff representation concluded that the Office proposal departs from remuneration policies among International Organisations.
Lack of financial justification
The administration explained that the philosophy of the EPO salary adjustment procedure is to keep the control over long-term liabilities. This why the Council already adopted a methodology 6 years ago to cap at EZ inflation +0.2%. They alleged that there is still a need to “curb” or “moderate” salary adjustments. The new salary adjustment procedure is not for the next 20 years but only for 6 years. Although actuaries make assumptions for the next 20 years, no one can predict what will happen in 6 years. They said they came to the meeting to test the temperature on their amended proposal.
The staff representation replied that the temperature on the amended proposal is ice cold. Staff representation rejected the terminology “moderate” because the EPO proposal has nothing to do with the “moderation clause” applied in the EU. The “moderation clause” of the EU only postpones adjustments. The EPO proposal is a cut without recovery of the loss. Staff representation recalled
that the Office made in the Financial Study 2019 a promise of reversibility1 if the financial situation of the EPO does not show a downturn. Six years later, the EPO performed much better than the best scenarios of Oliver Wyman & Mercer. Instead of reversibility, further cuts are now on the table without any financial justification.
The administration pretended that they need to ensure that “the Office still has a 66% probability of being able to pay its liabilities in 20 years”. They stressed that one cannot pretend that the EPO is out of troubles. They added that the reference to reversibility cannot be interpreted in the sense meant by the staff representation. The 2020 reform of the salary adjustment procedure may have brought the impact expected but reverting to the historical underlying methodology would still change the future. The arguments of the staff representation regarding the current outstanding financial situation of the Office should be considered as only a “snapshot” and is not relevant and the financial strategy of the Office, and the plans set out in CA/39/24 need to be continued.
The staff representation replied that the 66% relate to the probability of reaching returns on investment in the RFPSS. A probability over 50% actually aims at overfunding. The topic is already covered by the Actuarial Study 2025 with a historically high increase of pension contributions. This is completely unrelated to a remuneration policy.
The administration repeated that they need to continue with the cautious approach. They added that the reference to reversibility made at the time of the Financial Study 2019 is not a promise in the sense of ILOAT jurisprudence.
The staff representation asked that if the present exceptional financial situation is not enough for the Office to stop the erosion of salaries, what economic situation would be required? And if this is what we get in the good times, what can we expect in the bad?
The administration replied that reversibility could be possible only when all the political and financial parameters are met. For instance, the erosion of salaries could stop when the EPO has fully absorbed the impact of the Old Pension Scheme and of the Old Career System, the digitisation is fully in place and the workforce has been reduced to a moderate number. They said that the EPO might be in a better position but it is not out of troubles. They stated that it would be possible to revert to the old method only if and when all the parameters, including the political one, are met.
The staff representation stated that they could see no way in which the political parameters could be met, as it appears that if only one delegate expresses the desire for more cuts, then the parameter is not met.
Situation in the Administration Council
The staff representation recalled the situation in the Administrative Council where the delegations essentially care about the number of published patents for which they receive cash in renewal fees. First, staff representation noted that the liabilities of the EPO are covered. This is far from being the case in the countries of some very critical delegations. Germany has no coverage of its liabilities, nor have United Kingdom and France. Second, staff representation pointed out that Article 40 EPC defines that the fees shall be fixed at such a level as to ensure that the revenue in respect thereof is sufficient for the budget of the Organisation to be balanced. However, it appears that the opposite is happening, that the costs are being reduced to fit the fees. Article 42 EPC defines that the budget of the Organisation shall be balanced. However, the situation is that the 2026 Budget2 foresees a staggering operating surplus of 643 M€. Some delegations are now considering that the income of the Organisation is too high and are pushing for an application of Article 39 EPC to go below the 50% distribution key used for the reimbursement of renewal fees to the EPO. Staff representation concluded that there is therefore very good basis for reverting to the EPO’s historical underlying methodology for salary adjustments. Third, staff representation reminded that national patent offices have difficulties in recruiting. In order to remain a success
_____
1 CA/18/20, page 3/15
2 CA/50/25, page 12/50
story, the EPO should maintain its work package to maintain its position. To do so, salary adjustments should go along with those of national civil servants, i.e. parallelism with a specific indicator.
The administration replied that they want the EPO to remain a success story. However, they added that the EPO fees for the whole procedure are much higher than for the patent offices of the United States, Korea and Japan. The Contracting States might also not want to endlessly increase the fees and stated that the Office cannot systematically increase the fees.
The staff representation were alarmed at this statement and asked if the administration had, as a goal, the reduction in the real cost of the fees by not adjusting them with inflation. Such a goal would have a huge impact on the salary adjustment procedure since the income from fees and outgoings from staff costs are inextricably linked. The staff representation further disagreed with the statement about the level of EPO fees and noted that contrary to the cited national patent offices, the EPO covers 39 Contracting States with extension states. The difference in fees is therefore entirely justified.
The administration then attempted to stop the discussion on the fee policy. They said that they have no mandate to discuss the fee policy and that staff representatives should address the competent people on the topic.
Provocations from the administration
The staff representation reminded that the EPO never reached the planned EZ inflation +0.2% over the last 6 years of methodology but only EZ inflation –0.2%. Staff representation stressed that the administration made a mistake and asked why EZ inflation +0.2% is not possible now.
The administration denied any mistake and defended that EZ inflation +0.2% was set as a maximum as it seemed the best way to reach it. They pretended that they addressed the critics of the staff representation now by fixing overall adjustment of the scales at EZ inflation ±0.0%. They reproached staff representation to misquote in their papers the statements made in the meetings.
The staff representation rejected the administration’s attempts to attribute to staff representation any responsibility for the decrease from EZ inflation +0.2% to EZ inflation ±0.0%. Staff representation proposed the administration makes its own General Assembly in front of hundreds of staff members in which they explain the philosophy on prudent approach with “risk appetite” to be further reduced and a salary erosion until the last OPS member is dead. Staff representation pointed out that for the time being the Communiqué of 16 January 2026 tries to shed a positive light on the reform by pretending that the aim is to “focus on protecting purchasing power”. This Communiqué is bluntly incorrect.
The administration said that staff representatives just defend the historical underlying methodology in order to get the support of staff for their re-election in the next staff committee elections of June this year.
The staff representation strongly denied any such motives and reminded that it is the administration themselves who had put the reference to reversibility in the Council document. Staff representation defends the position of staff who worked well and faithfully to allow the Office to be in such a financially robust position and do not deserve a further cut of purchasing power without any financial justification.
The administration said that the EPO compares very well with other International Organisations in terms of remuneration and in terms of funding of liabilities. They recalled the EPO underwent three major reforms made by three different Presidents: 1) the new pension scheme, 2) the new career system and 3) the salary adjustment procedure. Now the EPO is in a very good situation and if it continues like that it will be very good in 20 years’ time. Concerning legal risks, they said that all reforms have been systematically legally challenged by staff and their representation in the last 20 years. They expect the staff representation to go to litigation again: “We will see each other in
court, yes”. The administration was of the opinion that it is not possible to avoid a legal risk, but they did not address the fact that not all legal risks are equal.
The staff representation replied that the EPO has been testing the limits of employment law over the last 20 years. Staff and their representation had no other choice than to legally challenge such reforms to restore the right to strike, the right to mass-communication and the right to freely organise staff committee elections. Staff representation concluded that the reduction of legal risks and the prudent approach should have as consequence that the Office refrains from drafting an in- house new salary adjustment procedure from scratch that has no basis in other International Organisations and is not legally tested. In this respect, the removal of the parallelism with national civil servants is not prudent as salary adjustments would depart from the decision of the governments of delegations in the Administrative Council.
The administration considered that the discussion has been long enough. They pretended they would prefer to agree with the staff representation and opt for a culture of compromise. They said they would never criticise staff representation for going to the Tribunal. They alleged that staff representatives are more moderate in the discussions when they attend meetings of the Administrative Council.
The staff representation reacted to the administration’s implication that staff representatives could be more courageous in front of the Council. Staff representation replied that the feeling is mutual, and that the administration should show more courage in front of the delegates by standing against pressure to further cut purchasing power – pressure driven more by opinions and conflict of interest than by facts and data.
Conclusion
The fourth technical meeting showed regression rather than progress in the discussions. The “sustainability” mandate given by the President to his services remains a major issue.
The administration was set to meet in the week of 2 to 6 February 2026 with delegations in the Administrative Council to present their proposal. The status of the proposal presented was not known by the staff representation at the time of the meeting.
The next meeting on the “future orientations on the salary adjustment procedure” will be the one of the GCC foreseen to take place on 24 February 2026.
The Central Staff Committee
It does not look like António Campinos bothers attending any chats with the Committee, never mind SUEPO (union) saying that he is MIA all the time. He's too busy covering up for his cocaine buddy. █
