The EPO's Board 28, which meets privately, has already admitted that there is a crisis at the EPO ("crisis" is their own word). Do they realise who caused this crisis? Do they care to openly admit this?
"Does a half-brother need to be assassinated in some Malaysian airport before politicians all across European openly denounce Battistelli and demand sanctions against Eponia?"Less than a year ago Battistelli ignored what the Administrative Council had demanded and he miraculously got away with it. It seems like his own 'bosses' have become subservient to him. It's totally absurd. It makes Eponia, at least unofficially, a rogue state. Does a half-brother need to be assassinated in some Malaysian airport before politicians all across European openly denounce Battistelli and demand sanctions against Eponia?
Earlier today someone leaked to us this long (43 pages) document [PDF] from which the above was extracted. There are various noteworthy things about it, including Article 113 which says "[a] complaint may be filed with the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization in accordance with its Statute once a decision is final, when internal procedures are either excluded or otherwise exhausted."
"It's time to involve more people in the scrutiny of what has become Europe's great source of shame."Well, ILO usually does not help (it just wastes time and then sends back the majority of cases to the kangaroo court). Even when it rules against the EPO's management Battistelli does not quite obey demands of a fair trial. So what gives? It's time to involve more people in the scrutiny of what has become Europe's great source of shame.
Recently, SUEPO produced a translation of a Dutch decision (converted from Dutch into English), revealing just to what degree states which proclaim to uphold justice let the EPO get away with extreme abuse, mistrials, and so on. Here are 8 articles that we wrote about it:
24 January 2017 ex17002cpWill Board 28 wake up and take action already? Will people who kill innocent animals for fur have the compassion for human beings who are pushed to the verge of suicide (if not suicide)? Frankly, we doubt it. The rogue state has become so rogue that expecting an organ within the EPO to repair the whole Organisation is like expecting North Korea to repair itself from the inside. Outside intervention, probably political intervention, is sorely needed. It won't happen unless the public becomes better informed and actually demands this from politicians. ⬆
The Supreme Court of the Netherlands upholds the EPO’s immunity
Dear SUEPO members, dear colleagues,
We are disappointed to inform you that the Supreme Court of the Netherlands has decided to uphold the EPO’s immunity in the case brought by SUEPO to complain about infringement of fundamental rights.
This decision has obvious implications for the about 40 international organisations based in The Netherlands, who are now free to violate fundamental rights in the “City of Justice and Peace” if they so wish.
For our part, we maintain that functional immunity is not the same as absolute immunity, but the consequences of this fine but important distinction are apparently lost on many. While we are disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision, we are also comforted to learn that the issue of immunity of international organization (and abuse thereof) is being taken up by the Council of Europe, a debate in which SUEPO’s counsel participated.
One thing is clear: While, according to the judgment, the Dutch judge cannot do anything about the EPO’s violations of fundamental rights, the findings that such violations occurred remains on the record - a permanent stain on the CV of Mr Battistelli and his associates.
The judgment raises the issue of liability of member states: can they really sign up to international treaties that abolish fundamental rights for so many of their citizens? With the judgment, the EPO goes scot-free - but what are the consequences for the host state itself? Such questions will likely be a matter of discussion in the upcoming parliamentary discussion on the EPO, planned for 9 February.
Anyway, we will review the judgment in detail and assess what the next steps can be. We will keep you informed. For the moment, we wish to thank wholeheartedly our legal team for the tremendous work done during the past years on what was from inception a very complex legal case, as well as you all for the support provided during the worst social crisis of the EPO since its inception in 1977.
The EPO can continue its story-telling to the public, namely that “its door is always open”. The reality is that in 2016 three Union Officials have been dismissed, one severely downgraded. This is anything but social dialogue, and a terrible world-premiere among International Organisations.
Your SUEPO Committee in The Hague
Staff Union of the European Patent Office (SUEPO) Veraartlaan 8 2288 GM Rijswijk (ZH) The Netherlands
suepothehague@gmail.com http://hague.suepo.org/epo