The Aanzegging is an admonition to the Court Bailiff. The Bailiffs may not enter the EPO premises to try and enforce the judgment, more specifically by (trying to)confiscate property and assets of the Organization.
SUEPO sets the record straight on immunity and enforcement in the publication available here, .
De Volkskrant (cover page of paper edition of 26 February 2015) (en,fr,de),De Telegraaf (en,fr,de),Joop andNRC Handelsblad covered the controversy that the executive interferes in the judiciary, and that immunity prevails over human rights.
The Süddeutsche Zeitung, "Recht haben und recht bekommen" (en,fr) (27 February 2015) reports that a spokesperson for the Dutch Ministry of External Affairs confirmed that the EPO exerted pressure on the Dutch authorities to defend its position that it enjoys immunity from execution of the judgement.
"The European states, including Germany, should never have ratified the Convention relating to the European Patent Office," says Siegfried Broß, a former judge of the German Constitutional Court, "because it places the fundamental and human rights of EPO employees at the disposition of the Office Administration."IPKat and HR Praktijk also report on these events.
Members of the Labour Party (PvdA) have now has posed questions on 27 February 2015 to Ivo Opstelten, Dutch Minister of Justice (printable version) (en,fr,de).The Labour Party (PvdA) currently forms a coalition government with the Liberal Party (VVD).
In July 2014 they had posed the earlier questions referred to in Question 2. The answers(printable version) (en,fr,de) of the Minister of Social Affairs and Labour confirmed the problem of the immunity of the EPO when trying to run an investigation on the working conditions and the respect of the rights of the employees.The Minister of Social Affairs and Labour did seem to agree, referring to Article 20 PPI that the EPO should comply with relevant Dutch legislation. However, the Labour Inspection could do nothing without permission of the EPO's president.
Back in November 2013, Raimund Lutz (VP5) published a reader's letter (en,fr) in the Süddeutsche Zeitung and commented on articles about the social conflict at the EPO after the entry into force of the new strike regulations and the limitations on union emails.
"Der in den Artikeln vermittelte Eindruck, der Rechtsschutz für EPA-Beamte sei unzureichend und entspreche nicht europäischen Menschenrechtsstandards, ist abwegig." said Raimund Lutz, Vice-President Legal and International Affaires (DG5).
Translation in English: "The impression given in the articles, that the legal protection for EPO staff is insufficient and does not accord with European human rights standards, is incorrect".
In the joint interview published in Managing IP:"There is absolutely no doubt that any proposal that would not fit with any international standards on human rights and worker rights would never have a chance to go through our process." said Jesper Kongstad, Chairman of the Administrative Council of the EPO.
"EPO respects all principles on human rights and worker rights and applies the best possible international standards." said Benoît Battistelli, President of the EPO.
The German press largely covered the events:
"Betroffene appellieren an die deutsche Politik, sich endlich einzumischen. Sie müssen dabei aber vorsichtig sein, weil Battistelli Beschäftigten auch Kontakte mit deutschen Behörden oder Volksvertretern untersagt. „Für den deutschen Staat sollte nun endlich die Schmerzgrenze erreicht sein,“ sagt ein Patentsamtsmitarbeiter und bittet zugleich um Anonymität. Vor allem Bundesjustizminister Heiko Maas dürfe vor dem Gebahren Battistellis nicht mehr die Augen verschließen."
"Nur ein Richter dürfe Demonstrationsrechte beschneiden, nicht Herr Battistelli, sagte Paul Arlman, ehemaliger Chef der Organisation Transparency International in den Niederlanden. Das Patentamt stelle sich gegen international anerkannte Rechtsprinzipien."
IPKat also reports on the cancellation of the demonstration and asks for a reaction from the Minister for Innovation (UK), Baroness Neville-Rolfe.
The demonstration planned for Wednesday 25 February in front of the British consulate had to be cancelled for reasons outside SUEPO's control.
On Wednesday 25 February 2015 a demonstration will take place in Munich (Germany) starting from the EPO Isar building (Bob-van-Benthem-Platz 1) at 12.10h and ending at the British consulate (Möhlstrasse 5).
The United Kingdom is represented in the Administrative Council by Mr John ALTY (Chief Executive and Controller General of the UK IPO) and Mr Sean DENNEHEY (Deputy Chief Executive UK IPO). Mr Dennehey is also member of the Board of the Administrative Council ("Board 28") which is currently discussing the future of the EPO Boards of Appeal. Mr Dennehey was recently re-elected Chairman of the Patent Law Committee. Mr Dennehey apparently supported the Office in trying to suppress public discussion about the suspension of a Member of the Boards of Appeal while at the same time leaving space for Mr Battistelli to express his view of the events.
Staff of the EPO reproach the governing body of the Organisation for:
In a judgment, dated 17 February 2015, the Gerechtshof den Haag (appellate court based in The Hague) lifted the immunity of the EPO and ordered it to rescind several recent amendments to the organisation's staff regulations.The action was brought by SUEPO against the EPO and the court has ruled that the EPO:
IPKat reports on this decision.
FOSS Patents considers that staff of the EPO asks a good question: How many patents does Europe need?.The question was raised in the SUEPO flyer announcing the coming demonstration in front of the British Consulate.
"SUEPO's concern [about patent quality] is understandable in light of an official document (minutes of May 2009 of Board 28 meeting), which says that Mr Battistelli as well as the Chairman of the Administrative Council (AC) shared the following philosophy: "Priority on increased output should be the leading consideration.""
Florian Mueller considers that "the leaderhsip of a patent office, should, as a matter of principle, always view patent quality as the number one priority, with efficiency being a close second if there are objective indications of inefficiencies and a distant second if benchmarking and other types of analysis suggest that any further efficiency gains would be limited or, if overreaching, come at the expense of patent quality."
"One of the structural problems (which in turn is the root cause of other structural deficiencies) is that the EPO basically mints money for national patent offices by putting out many patents, and only by granting (not by rejecting) applications -- otherwise there's no money to be made for national patent offices."
Jim Boff, Chairman of the Patents Committee of CIPA (the UK's Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys) has sent a letter to Mr Jesper Kongstad, Chairman of the EPO's Administrative Council (AC).
In this letter, CIPA is urging the AC to take interim measures to increase and copperfasten the independence of the Boards, while noting that these measures are not a substitute for amending the EPC itself:"Given the experience with ratification of EPC2000, amendment to the EPC will take too long to deal with the immediate problem, but should not be ruled out, particularly given that the Article 4a EPC conference of ministers is long overdue and the above mentioned proposal for autonomy was made over 10 years ago." A copy of the letter can be found in this post of IPKat.
IPKat concludes that: "Whether in the short term (with rule changes) or in the longer term (with an amendment of the Convention), the aim would be to set in stone the separation of powers which has been overwhelmingly demanded by the users of the EPO, Europe's patent judiciary, the EPO staff, and the members of the Appeal Boards themselves. Everyone, that is, except the management of the EPO which appears hellbent on bringing the Boards under its nurturing and protective wing."
IPKat reports on the discussions concerning the reform of both the governance and the structure of the Boards of Appeal.
The proposals of the Board 28 of the Administrative Council (AC) are said to "enhance the visibility of the independence and autonomy of governance". No amendment of the EPC is foreseen.Regarding the speculation that the EBoA is to be moved to Berlin, Mr Kongstad's response until now is a diplomatic "no comment".