The EPO's President, Who Covers Up Cocaine Use, is Trying to Suppress Communication Between EPO Staff Under the Guise of 'Privacy' (and in Defiance of a Court Ruling)
4 months have been since the EPO's António Campinos worked to hide rather than tackle cocaine use in his cabinet. Benoît Battistelli was known for his drunkard ways, but alcohol is legal, cocaine is not.
Now there are strikes and other industrial actions at the EPO. The staff representation explains some of the artificial barriers set up by Campinos and his 'fake privacy' appointee, whose real aim is censorship and prevention of dissent. He has long attempted to silence the staff or find other means of restricting speech between colleagues.
Where do we stand now?
Well, the Local Staff Committee The Hague put it this way (today):
Dear members, dear colleagues,
We are happy to announce that for the first time in many years the Staff Committee can send emails to all staff in the Hague, albeit via an external email provider – more details on the situation here.
On 10 March, the Local Staff Committee The Hague presented an update on the new Salary Adjustment Procedure (SAP 2027–2032), see the slides here. The presentation highlighted the questionable narrative being pushed by management. Another aspect covered was that over the last 6-years, our hard work led to massive productivity gains. However, over the same period huge cuts were imposed, effectively reducing the living standards of staff.
We are now only one week away from the meeting of the AC, during which they will give their opinions on the administration’s proposed SAP. We want those discussions to be held in the context of the strongest possible signal of social unrest. Therefore, we invite you to support the industrial actions:
this coming week is designated as high intensity work-to-rule, with full-time dedication to drafting communications, undertaking trainings, and personal development, and
register for the third warning strike on 19 March.
What they "are happy to announce" is only part of the story; as restrictions remain, artificial barriers. This paper dated yesterday explains:
Staff Committee The Hague
Comité du personnel de La Haye
Personalausschuss Den Haag11 March 2026
sc26006hpYou’ve got mail – almost
After many years your Staff Committees can finally send emails to all staff again. In 2013, the then President limited access to email to max 50 persons, effectively rendering it impossible for your Staff Representation to send a mass email to all staff. SUEPO and the Staff Committees brought the matter before the ILO -AT, which ruled in our favour. Following this judgment, new data protection requirements were introduced by the EPO, obliging Staff Representation to use an external mailing tool and to allow staff to unsubscribe. The arrangement remains problematic because the Staff Committees do not have direct insight into the content of the mailing list, and because our messages - considered part of the normal functioning of the Office, like communications from BIT, internal services, VP1, or the President - should not be subject to an unsubscribe option.
Dear colleagues,
It has been long in the making – but finally your Staff Representation can again send emails to all staff, albeit indirectly.
The saga started in 2013, when the then President limited access to email to max 50 persons, effectively rendering it impossible for your Staff Representation to send a mass email to all staff. This limitation was part of an entire campaign eroding the overall working package of staff at the EPO: right to strike, new career system, new pension system – all detrimental reforms, where the ban on sending emails made it much more difficult for Staff Representation to keep staff informed, and in turn easier for senior management to chip away at our working conditions.
The social unrest at the time was tangible, and was widely publicised internally and externally, putting the EPO in a negative spotlight. Consequently, Staff Representation and SUEPO brought this situation to the Tribunal.
With the arrival of Mr. Campinos – coming from an EU institution where access to (mass-)email was a given, and with a mandate from the Administrative Council to restore social peace – there was hope that the EPO would allow their Staff Representatives to freely communicate with staff once again. Alas, despite repeated requests, the President did not move on this subject. Even requests to send a
Christmas card to staff were blocked, but as a ‘pilot project’ Staff Representation would be allowed to send 2 mass emails only when linked with an invitation to a General Assembly.
In 2022 the ILO-AT delivered Judgment 4551, setting aside the decision of the President to restrict the access to email to a maximum of 50 persons – and once again, there was hope that Mr Campinos would re-instate access to mass email.
Judgment 4551 was not a standalone case, it came in a slew of ILO decisions overturning many of the recent reforms by the Battistelli administration. Staff Representation invited the senior administration to reflect on these judgments, to work with staff rather than against it. Unfortunately the administration then introduced limitations under GDPR. Obstacles which did not exist in the entire pre-Battistelli era, and which the administration had not referred to in the entire procedure leading up to Judgment 4551.
The reluctance of our senior management to implement Judgment 4551 again found its way to some external publications, including Kluwer Patent Blog. It is one of the elements which cast some shade over the 50 Years EPC celebrations.
The restrictions put in place now require Staff Representation to send emails through an external tool and allow staff to unsubscribe. Our colleagues in BIT were extremely helpful in setting it up, however the requirement to send emails via the external tool remains problematic for two reasons:
- the staff committees do not have direct insight into the content of the mailing list, and
- emails from the staff committees are generally regarded as being part of the smooth running of the Office, and as such should not be subject to unsubscribe. Like the emails from BIT, or internal services, VP1, or the President.
Though we now do have the possibility to inform you, we have accepted the use of the external tool under duress. In all likelihood we will have to wait for the Tribunal to express itself once again on how they interpret the freedom of staff and their representatives to communicate.
Kind regards,
Your Local Staff Committee The Hague
Why does Europe's second-largest institution: 1) curtail communication among staff (including union) and 2) go out of its way to avoid obeying a court order from ILOAT in Geneva? █