The Liar in Chief

"A fish rots from the head down"

Summary: Benoît Battistelli's decision to dismiss staff representatives (in complete violation of what the Administrative Council demanded) is accompanied by yet more face-saving lies (clearly a sackable offense in a public institution which is functional and not a global laughing stock)

NOTHING that we see at the EPO surprises us anymore. In fact, we've become accustomed to assuming (and safely so, based on recent experiences) that everything EPO management says is a lie. It's no exaggeration to say that the EPO is now in "Blatter mode" as the epic scandal continues to deepen.

Laurent Prunier responds to the EPO's claims in a followup article from WIPR. Here is a portion:

Laurent Prunier, former elected member of the central staff committee and secretary of the Staff Union of the European Patent Office (SUEPO) in The Hague, has responded to statements made by the European Patent Office (EPO).

Earlier this month, Prunier was dismissed. He had been accused of harassment and defamation, but denied the claims.

Yesterday, November 24, WIPR reported staff members were holding a demonstration to show solidarity with “dismissed, downgraded and targeted staff representatives and SUEPO officials”.

Now Prunier has responded to a number of assertions made by a spokesperson for the EPO, stating that they presented a number of “incorrect facts”.

According to Prunier, the EPO’s spokesperson has no access to the investigation reports and to the disciplinary files, as they are confidential, meaning that they are in no position to certify that “all the rules were followed”.

The EPO got caught lying again, as its nasty PR department (with that TI conflict of interests) prefers to just say what sounds good rather than what's true; it lies all the time and it gets caught even in circular lies or chaining of lies (one lie that helps cover up another). What a total mess!

Here is how one comment put it the other day:

WIPR published yesterday an article article about the dismissal of Prunier, and cited the statement of the Office that "The procedures were conducted according to our rules, which compare favourably to other international organisations [...]" etc. etc.

Today, they published the response of Prunier, who notices that "the EPO’s spokesperson has no access to the investigation reports and to the disciplinary files, as they are confidential, meaning that they are in no position to certify that “all the rules were followed” and further challenges every statement of the EPO spokeperson.

The EPO declined to further comment.

It's worth reading.

Here is what another person said, regarding leaks that we openly called for (leaks related to this case):

Some honest and brave AC members who understand what is going on here should ask BB for the investigation reports of Prunier and for an overview in detail of which rules were followed. BB will never give the reports and that overview. It is clear why. Be honest, should you put your head in a guillotine? Leaking of that information is urgently desired. The EPO should further urgently sign the European Convention on Human Rights.

If anyone other than Prunier leaks these documents to us, Prunier himself cannot be punished as the leaks are not within his control or his own fault. We welcome any information readers may have on this case. The world deserves to know what goes on before Battistelli proceeds to dismissals of more staff representatives at The Hague (disciplinary procedures have already been initiated against more of them and they are not allowed to speak about that). It's a reign of terror.

As Prunier made abundantly clear, these procedures against him were initiated not by ordinary staff but by a close associate of Battistelli, possibly Bergot (it's hard to know without leaked documents).

Here is one quoteworthy comment from today. It makes a good case for the dismissal of Battistelli and reinstatement/compensation to those whom he attacked for attempting to save the EPO:

In March the Council requested the President: 1)to ensure that disciplinary sanctions and proceedings are not only fair but also seen to be so, and to consider the possibility of involvement of an external reviewer or of arbitration or mediation 2)pending the outcome of this process and before further decisions in disciplinary cases are taken, to inform the AC in appropriate detail and make proposals that enhance confidence in fair and reasonable proceedings and sanctions; 3)to submit to the AC a draft revision of the Staff Regulations which incorporates investigation guidelines (including the investigation unit) and disciplinary procedures which have been reviewed and amended; 4)to achieve, within the framework of the tripartite negotiations, an MOU simultaneously with both trade unions, which would have no pre-conditions or exclude any topics from future discussions; 5)to submit proposals to the AC at its June 2016 meeting, after discussion in B28, for immediate implementation of the structural reform of the BOA, on the lines of the 5 points agreed by the AC at its December 2015 meeting and of the legal advice given by Prof. Sarooshi, and taking into account comments from the Presidium of the BOA; 6)to submit proposals to the AC at its June 2016 meeting, after discussion in B28, for reinforcement of the AC secretariat and a clarification of its position in terms of governance.

Nine months afterwards he managed point 5 only with great help from the Council and with a widely criticized text, which the Council accepted only because they desperately needed some kind of reform.

In points 1,2,3,4,6 he completely failed.

Is it time to look for a President with the skills and will to carry out his mandate?

We welcome leaks related to the case. Surely there are at least a handful of people who have access to the documents and can send portions anonymously to us. Remember that in over 10 years we never compromised a source. ⬆