Local Staff Committee The Hague (LSCTH) Meets "Alicante Mafia" at the European Patent Office (EPO)
Report on meeting with VP1 and his team on 21 April 2026
"On 21 April 2026," the staff representatives in The Hague told EPO staff, "the Local Staff Committee The Hague met with VP1 in his function of Site Manager The Hague together with members of the administration."
The meeting was one month ago with Steve Rowan, Elodie Bergot, and others who are considered part of "Alicante Mafia" (by EPO staff).
A report was published exactly a month later and was shared with staff. It's 10 pages in length:
Staff Committee The Hague
Comité du personnel de La Haye
Personalausschuss Den HaagRijswijk, 21 May 2026
sc26010hpLSCTH meets Site Manager VP1
Dear colleagues,
On 21 April 2026, the Local Staff Committee The Hague (LSCTH) met with Steve Rowan (VP1), in his capacity as Site Manager for The Hague, along with members of the administration: Angel Aledo Lopez (Chief Operating Officer), Annick Cassimon (assistant of COO), Elodie Bergot (Welfare & Remuneration) Frédéric Brunelle (General Administration), Gema Requena Sempere (People), Hilde Cadenau (Payroll Services), Jan Boulanger (People), Konstantinos Kortsaris (President's Office), Maria Arranz Gomez (Social Dialogue Secretariat), Mohammed El Hadouchi (Pension and Remuneration), Silvia Analia Echagüe-Wehling (People Services and Well-Being) and Steffen Peschgens (People Planning and Talent Management).
The meeting focused on the following six issues which were brought forward to VP1 as prepared and agreed by the LSCTH:
1. Impact of industrial actions
2. Amicale reform
3. Building works at the New Main building
4. Closure of the BSN Senior School Leidschenveen
5. Lack of reimbursement for children with special needs
6. Production pressure
1. Impact of industrial actions
The LSCTH underlined that the Office is currently facing the most significant social unrest among staff seen under the present administration. Following warning strikes in January, February and March, staff in The Hague decided to intensify industrial action through a rolling strike plan allowing strikes on any working day from 30 March until the end of June.
Staff representatives stressed that this escalation reflects deep frustration among colleagues, who feel that repeated concerns have not been meaningfully addressed. They noted that industrial actions now extend beyond strike participation and include work-to-rule measures, with visible effects on production figures. In their view, the lack of response to such an exceptional situation risks further damaging trust between staff and management.
The administration replied that participation levels remained broadly comparable to previous strike days, with proportionally somewhat higher participation in The Hague than at other sites. It further stated that, based on available indicators, no increase had so far been observed in requests to Occupational Health Services or confidential support services during the first quarter of 2026.
The LSCTH responded that the issue goes well beyond welfare statistics. The committee asked what concrete measures were being taken to address the underlying causes of staff dissatisfaction. It noted that substantial efforts appeared to have been made to accommodate concerns expressed by delegations in the Administrative Council, whereas staff concerns were perceived as receiving insufficient consideration. Staff representatives warned that many colleagues increasingly feel excluded from decisions affecting their employment conditions.
The administration rejected any suggestion of disrespect towards staff and emphasised that the work of colleagues, in particular examiners, is regularly recognised internally and externally, including before the Administrative Council. It further stated that numerous meetings had taken place with staff representation, and that disagreement with the outcome should not be confused with absence of dialogue.
Regarding the substance of the reform, the administration reiterated that the proposal to be submitted to the Budget and Finance Committee and later to the Administrative Council represents, in its view, the best package that could realistically obtain approval in the current economic and geopolitical context. It added that the Office had communicated its position transparently and would continue to do so.
The LSCTH acknowledged that staff performance had indeed been praised at Administrative Council level, particularly following the strong results of 2025. However, the committee stressed that the core problem was not recognition of
performance, but the perception that changes to employment conditions were being pursued despite clear opposition from staff. It argued that the scale of the current unrest should be explicitly acknowledged in discussions with delegations, as this could help demonstrate the operational consequences of continued erosion of purchasing power and deteriorating trust.
The administration responded that delegations were fully aware of the industrial actions, noting demonstrations outside the building, interventions by staff representation, and regular reporting on Office performance. It stated that no information was being concealed, but that management, staff representation and member states clearly held different views regarding the broader economic environment and the best means of safeguarding the Office in the medium and long term.
VP1 added that further discussions on the same matter would take place in the Budget and Finance Committee and subsequently in the Administrative Council. He repeated that several delegations had considered the Office proposal already generous, while others had requested amendments. In his assessment, the current proposal remained the most balanced and realistic option available at present.
In closing, the administration insisted that management was not ignoring the situation. It stressed that those often referred to as “the administration” are themselves also staff members of the Office, and that the matter remains high on the internal agenda.
Finally, the LSCTH raised possible irregularities identified in the strike registration tool and requested a contact person to discuss their potential impact on strike data. The administration agreed to identify the appropriate person and revert to staff representation.
2. Amicale reform
The LSCTH then raised concerns about the situation of the Amicale in The Hague and the effects of the ongoing reform on its functioning, resources and autonomy. In summary:
- The internal audit on Amicale did not recommend its complete overhaul or internalising the Amicale, i.e. reducing its autonomy while substantially increasing the administrative burden;
- Still, there were no less than 25 (!) meetings with the administration on the topic. Although some discussions were constructive, the Amicale TH representatives were exhausted by the process;
- A simple requirement to allocate time budget also to non-examiners, and especially during the intensive transition phase described above, was
refused. This goes against the principles of equality and diversity & inclusion;
- Transparency on the implementing guidelines (crucial for the subject of time budget) was also not provided by the administration;
- The previous Amicale TH committee composed of 10 members, who had altogether 100+ years of cumulative experience in running the Amicale subsequently stepped down en masse. The reasons for this are varied, but from our understanding, when it came to the concrete question of resources provided to our Amicale TH committee, the Office had remained unwilling to make the necessary investment, and this was a major reason for many committee members to step down;
- The new Amicale TH committee is composed of only 3 colleagues who have no prior experience in running the Amicale, and this is far from sufficient to have a well-functioning Amicale in the Hague;
- In parallel the EPO is providing a substantial amount of time budget to colleagues for the campus days: from our understanding, 5 FTEs for 2x 2 days. While the Amicale, which supports the social life of the Office throughout the entire year, receive 2.1 FTEs + 2.7 assistant FTEs for all Amicale branches across 4 sites.
The Amicale TH plays an important role for the social fabric of the EPO in the Hague. It seems that the Office is intent on making the Amicale a shadow of its former self. The committee requested that the administration takes measures to make the Amicale TH great again.
According to the administration, the work carried out during the discussions on the agreement had been incorporated into the circular, and the same applied to the implementing guidelines, which would serve as the basis for the future working instructions. Furthermore, the Amicale branches themselves had not always agreed among one another, which had made it more difficult to reach a final common position.
The administration further stated that its intention was to maintain the same overall level of FTE support for the Amicale, while possibly redistributing resources differently in the future. Although the transition phase may currently involve more work, the full internalisation of financial and procurement processes should ultimately reduce the burden on Amicale committees, since more support would then be provided directly by internal services.
Regarding the transition period, extra time budget had been approved for the examiners involved. Non-examiners received support in the form of contact with line managers in order to ensure that Amicale-related work was taken into account appropriately.
3. Building works in the New Main building
The LSCTH then raised concerns regarding the planned works in the New Main building, in particular the removal of the hanging gardens and the related façade repairs scheduled from May 2026 until February 2027.
Staff representatives referred to the intranet communication of 23 March 2026, which invited colleagues to “plan accordingly”, including by teleworking or booking alternative workspaces. The LSCTH noted that some staff perceived this as shifting the burden of disruption onto employees rather than providing a centrally coordinated solution. The committee therefore asked whether pragmatic temporary arrangements could be considered, notably in terms of office allocation and, where appropriate, flexibility regarding minimum office presence requirements during the noisiest phases of the works.
The LSCTH also recalled that, during the information session of 26 March, the hanging gardens had reportedly been described as having a purely aesthetic function. This appeared difficult to reconcile with earlier Office communications presenting the gardens as part of the building’s wider climate and wellbeing concept. Staff representatives therefore requested clarification on this point.
Finally, the LSCTH conveyed concerns expressed by colleagues who had already witnessed test operations in 2024. According to those reports, the cutting of large steel elements had generated extremely high noise levels, making concentration and normal office work difficult or impossible. The committee therefore asked what concrete noise mitigation measures were foreseen, whether the noisiest operations could be scheduled outside core working hours, how many quiet alternative workspaces would be made available, and whether the affected areas would be identified proactively.
The administration replied that the purpose of the earlier communication had been precisely to be transparent about the disruption that would occur. It stated that some noise would indeed be unavoidable, but that the Office wished to inform staff in advance so that colleagues could make their own choices rather than be forcibly relocated. A planning schedule would indicate which zones would be affected at which times, enabling staff either to remain in their usual office, move to another area of the building, or work from home on the relevant days.
The administration added that occupancy levels in the building remain well below total capacity, with approximately 60% use on the busiest days and significantly less on quieter days. It therefore considered that sufficient workplaces would remain available elsewhere in the building throughout the project.
Regarding noise mitigation, the administration stressed that efforts had been made to reduce disturbance as far as reasonably possible. Tests had been carried out in advance, and certain technical methods had been adapted in order to limit noise
levels. It nevertheless acknowledged that works of this nature could not be carried out in complete silence.
As regards the hanging gardens themselves, the administration explained that maintenance had become increasingly difficult and resource-intensive, while the condition of the plants had significantly deteriorated. In practice, maintaining the system was no longer considered sustainable. It therefore concluded that removal represented the best overall solution. The administration added that this decision had been taken in consultation with the original architect and formed part of a broader assessment of the long-term future of the building.
In response to the question on climate and façade performance, the administration stated that technical assessments had been carried out. According to those checks, the removal of the hanging gardens would have no measurable negative impact on sunlight entering the building, façade ventilation, noise insulation or fire protection. It added that, in some respects, ventilation of the façade cavity might even improve.
4. Closure of the BSN Senior School Leidschenveen
The LSCTH then raised concerns regarding the recent announcement by British School in the Netherlands (BSN) to phase out the Senior School Leidschenveen site.
The committee noted that the decision had created significant concern among families, including many EPO colleagues. Parents had raised questions relating to governance, transparency, consultation and the evidence base for such a major structural change. The LSCTH added that a group representing 143 families, including numerous EPO parents, had formally requested written clarification from the school’s leadership and governing bodies.
Beyond the internal processes of the school, the situation illustrates two broader concerns: the fragility of the international schooling ecosystem in the The Hague region, and the possible long-term consequences of the Education and Childcare Allowance Reform (ECAR) on the financial viability of international schools.
The LSCTH recalled that, for many internationally recruited staff, access to stable and high-quality schooling is a decisive factor when accepting employment or remaining at the Office. If educational conditions become less predictable or less affordable, the attractiveness of the Office as an employer is directly affected.
Staff representatives therefore asked whether contacts had already taken place with the BSN in order to understand the consequences for EPO families; whether the Office could consider temporary financial support allowing currently enrolled pupils to complete their studies in Leidschenveen; whether alternatives such as
the International School Delft or the American School in the Hague could be facilitated for affected families; and whether transitional support measures, such as reimbursement of additional transport costs, could be examined.
The administration replied that regular exchanges with the BSN take place, approximately twice per year, in order to maintain the relationship with the school. It emphasised, however, that the BSN is an independent institution which takes its own decisions. According to the administration, the Office learned of the current decision at the same time as the wider public and had not been involved in the decision-making process.
VP1 added that such difficulties should be seen as part of a broader picture affecting several international schools in the region, as well as international organisations and companies relying on them. He recalled that the BSN had faced previous challenges, including financial pressures after the COVID period and earlier restructuring measures. VP1 volunteered to participate in a future meeting with the BSN leadership in order to better understand the school’s plans and to convey the concerns of EPO staff.
The administration further noted that some proposals currently under discussion within the BSN include transport solutions between campuses. VP1 stated that the Office would reach out to the school and explore whether such mitigating measures could be encouraged.
The LSCTH replied that, while the exact degree may be debated, the ECAR had undoubtedly had some impact on the current difficulties faced by international schools in The Hague. It stressed that the overall effects of the reform in The Hague had been substantial and that this important topic should not be reduced to a brief item in a one-hour meeting. The committee therefore requested a dedicated meeting covering both the BSN and the wider schooling situation, including the European School The Hague (ESH).
VP1 agreed that a dedicated follow-up meeting would be appropriate. He noted that considerable work had already been undertaken by the administration in relation to the ESH and that updates could be provided on both schools when the timing allowed.
Finally, the LSCTH recalled that, when the ECAR had originally been discussed in the Budget and Finance Committee, the Dutch delegate had requested that the impact in the Netherlands be monitored and reviewed. Such an overview had been promised at the time but had not yet materialised and remains owed both to the Administrative Council and to staff.
VP1 replied that this point could be looked into and that he would seek to establish whether any plans already existed in that regard. He also reported that the Dutch Ambassador for International Organisations was well aware of the schooling
situation in The Hague and of the importance of long-term stability, in particular for the ESH, for the attractiveness of the Netherlands as a host country for international organisations.
5. Lack of reimbursement for children with special needs
The LSCTH then raised concerns regarding recent difficulties reported by families with children with special needs, which staff representatives considered to be another problematic consequence of the Education and Childcare Allowance Reform (ECAR).
The committee explained that some colleagues had reported refusals or interruptions of reimbursements linked to support measures required for the education of children with special needs. According to the LSCTH, some reimbursements had reportedly been granted in January 2026 but then discontinued in February, despite no apparent regulatory change during that period. Staff representatives stated that these developments had come unexpectedly and were causing distress to the small number of families concerned.
The LSCTH warned that restrictive interpretations of the applicable provisions risk depriving vulnerable children of support essential to their education and inclusion. It considered it regrettable that yet another legal dispute might arise in an area where practical solutions should be possible without unnecessary escalation.
The administration replied that the specific factual context of each case is important and that it was not aware of the individual situations referred to during the meeting. It nevertheless stressed that the Office offers a generous package of support for children with additional needs through different schemes.
According to the administration, requests must always be assessed to determine whether the child and the situation meet the relevant eligibility criteria. It added that, in some cases, alternative forms of reimbursement may also exist through the regular health insurance scheme, such as Cigna coverage, of which some colleagues may not be fully aware. Once the administrative eligibility aspects are clarified, a medical assessment may also be required where appropriate.
The administration emphasised that these procedures are standard and that there had been no change in practice, no change in the applicable guidelines, and no general reduction in the allowances available. It therefore invited any affected staff members to submit requests or raise their cases individually so that they could be examined properly.
VP1 added that, where a specific case exists, the matter could be brought to the attention of the Director People Services and Well-Being, who could look into
whether additional support was available or whether certain entitlements had not yet been claimed.
The LSCTH replied that it had indeed observed changes in practice in at least some recent cases and indicated that concrete examples would be forwarded after the meeting for further examination.
6. Production pressure
The LSCTH returned to the issue of increasing production pressure in several teams in The Hague.
The committee recalled that, at the previous meeting1, concerns had already been raised about exceptionally high planning increases in certain teams. At that time, management had indicated that increases should normally remain within the framework of the Medium-Term Business Plan, namely around 2.1%, unless specific circumstances justified otherwise. The LSCTH had also been invited to submit concrete examples, which it did by email of 13 January 2026.
Five concrete examples of teams facing substantial double-digit percentage increases in targets had been communicated. For the colleagues concerned, such planning decisions were difficult to understand in the absence of clear explanations showing how these increases could realistically be achieved.
The committee further referred to the written reply received on 15 February through social dialogue. In its view, this response left many important questions unanswered and did not provide the transparency previously requested. The LSCTH noted in particular that the explanation referred to changes in general parameters such as capacity and technical fields, although these elements did not appear relevant to the concrete examples previously raised. It also referred to comparisons between productivity and efficiency in “comparable technical areas”.
The committee questioned what was meant by comparable technical areas, noting that this had once been a more formalised concept but no longer appeared clearly defined. They asked how such areas are identified, by whom, and according to which criteria. They also sought clarification on how harmonisation is actually carried out once planning parameters are adjusted: whether targets are aligned progressively or in a single step, whether averages or other reference values are used, and whether actual working practices between teams are analysed and harmonised beforehand.
The LSCTH stressed that, based on the feedback received from colleagues, targets often appear simply to increase without practical guidance on how to meet
_______
1 See section 6 of 07.11.2025 meeting report.
them. In its view, this creates frustration, reduces trust in the planning process and may place an unnecessary burden on staff health and morale.
VP1 replied that the COO had previously outlined the general approach taken by management, namely that overall increases should remain in line with the Medium-Term Business Plan while also taking into account the specific circumstances of individual technical areas. He added that the recent grouping of teams into larger directorates had, in some cases, revealed significant differences between teams working in similar fields.
VP1 stated that he would ask the COO to provide further explanations, in particular regarding the support mechanisms available to help teams achieve a more harmonised and consistent level of productivity, quality and processes. He underlined that the objective was not limited to production figures alone, but also concerned consistency in the application of the EPC, examination practices and workflow processes.
The LSCTH indicated that it would send its questions in writing in a structured manner, so that management could respond in detail. It also raised concerns that a Principal Directors was reportedly “doing the rounds” and putting pressure on individual colleagues, including staff with medical issues, which does not foster trust.
VP1 replied that he would raise this concern with the COO and suggested that, if the written replies did not fully resolve the matter, the topic could be taken up again as a dedicated agenda item at a future meeting.
Kind regards,
Your Local Staff Committee The Hague
Notice the President's absence. He was busy arranging for his cocaine-using "brother-in-law" to get back into a top role at the EPO (finalised 5 days earlier). He's like Boris Johnson in the sense that he pretends maladministration and corruption are just accidents beyond his control (when he himself is wholly complicit). █