The Organisation should be prepared for criticism over its role in this embarrassment of Europe

Reference: Impunity

Summary: Impunity at the EPO, a subject of growing fury inside and outside the EPO, is revisited in light of the expectation that Dutch courts won't hold the EPO accountable, and Board 28 quit caring about the crisis which it itself had admitted

THE EPO is a politically-connected or politically-infiltrated institution. No wonder it's so abusive. We are going to provide evidence of it in the coming week. The politician/President Battistelli has a 0% approval rating at the EPO, much like politicians (they too have low degrees of public trust). The Board (28) and the Council, who are complicit and largely supportive of Battistelli, are also politically-connected and despite admitting there is "a crisis" at the EPO they do nothing to address it. The Board (28), for example, shows no intent to kick Benoît Battistelli out any time soon. Combine all this with immunity from the outside and what we have is a rogue entity totally above the law, including international law. See our prior (first) post about it. It's unthinkable that such a thing can be tolerated in the so-called 'developed' world.

It does not look like SUEPO is likely to resolve the issue on its own. Here's a recent new comment (correcting an error):

Obviously, it should have been "and a decision in favour of SUEPO in January look improbable."

Sorry for that.

This was said in relation to the Dutch "AG [who] forgets that the immunity of the EPO is not absolute according to the PPI," to quote this other new comment:

Well, IMHO the AG forgets that the immunity of the EPO is not absolute according to the PPI. It is limited to "within the scope of its official activities" (Art 3 PPI). Seeing the the EPO is continuoisly violating the PPI (by refusing any negotiations under Art. 20(2)PPI), where does the "scope" of official duties end? Art 3(4) gives a hint: (4) The official activities of the Organisation shall, for the purposes of this Protocol, be such as are strictly necessary for its administrative and technical operation, as set out in the Convention. Anything outside of the convention is not falling under immunities... And anything in implementing regulations, or other secondary law, is too easily amended, and can therefore not be protected by the claimed immunity grom everything.

There larger issue working against SUEPO is the requirement of the Office not being allowed to be put under restraints in one site, but not in the others. And the Dutch courts jurisdiction does not extend to Munich and Berlin and Bruxelles and Vienna...... Immunity might not be given, but a decision against the EPO may be refused under this requirement.

There is another new comment on the current situation and it makes it clear that people are very much disturbed by the situation at the EPO. We also saw some reactions -- some of them quite strongly worded -- in sites like Twitter. What the AG has said infuriates some EPO insiders. They're almost at a loss for words, except very strong words.

We have spent some time researching the potential causes of the immunity of the Office and the Organisation. Some people looked into the family background of Battistelli and also the secret life of Kongstad. In the run-up to the next big meeting we are going to reveal to readers some of our findings. ⬆