Translation here
IN LESS THAN A COUPLE of days the EPO situation will be discussed in Bavarian Parliament (see "Tagesordnung für die 101. Plenarsitzung des Bayerischen Landtags" at SUEPO's Web site). We happen to have a lot of information about particular EPO cases, which demonstrate truly gross injustice. The tyranny of the EPO, however, made it almost impossible to speak about these injustices. That's the kind of thing to be expected from a "third world" country, not Bavaria. Do Bavarian politicians grasp just to what degree this has damaged the reputation of Munich and Bavaria as a whole? They must act.
Maybe it is "curtains" for Suepo as well... As a member, I received an invitation to a general meeting for tomorrow. Here is the text (emphasis added):
This meeting is important for SUEPO Munich in general and for the members dismissed or downgraded in particular.
We have struggled with the question for support for those dismissed and downgraded committee members for more then one year. As you can imagine there is by now a mountain of information. A good part of the documents entails confidential information and another part is private information. Because we fear that this information may end up in the wrong hands and may be used against past, present and future committee members we have asked our attorney on how best to proceed. The following is our decision to ensure that the documents are available to all staff for information but can not be copied.
Since the EPO does not allow for any kind of union work on its premisses you can read the redacted documents (three legal opinions and an opinion of a tax advisor) in the office of the attorney Mr. Alexander Holtz*.
On Wednesday the 5th April these documents will also be available to any SUEPO member in the Eine-Welt-Haus from 14:00.
During the EGM two of the three legal opinions will be presented by their authors.
The third legal opinion is from a former Judge at the 'Bundesgerichthof' in Karlsruhe and former Justice Minister in Thüringen. This opinion concentrates on the parts which the first two opinions diverge from each other.
The Opinion of the tax advisor concentrates on the possibility of a more transparent and regulated support by SUEPO for those dismissed or downgraded.
Quite simply: Battistelli has immunity, suepo does not. If there is any information which "can be used against members", it will be used against members. Making it available to the assembly of members and hoping it will "not be copied" is absurd: once it is given to read to the members, it is public and can be requested by any court.