Constitutional Law Alert for the EPO

search-result-placeholder.jpg

What can people, in particular citizens of Munich and Bavaria, do if they feel that elementary constitutional rights are infringed, not somewhere abroad and far away, but literally next door, at the Isar river banks or in the Pschorrhöfe building?

Unfortunately, this is no rhetorical question. If such things happen in the jurisdiction of German courts and under German government, German citizens can discuss them with the relevant office or authority, seek redress to court, or they can choose the political pathway and vote for a party that at least promises to deal with the violation by changing the law, if others choose to ignore it.

But what if the authority in question is the European Patent Office, for which the EPC Contracting States have agreed the following in Article 3 of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of the European Patent Organisation:

Within the scope of its official activities the Organisation shall have immunity from jurisdiction and execution, (…)

In effect, this means there is no court available to address such alleged violations. At the EPO level, there are no independent courts, and in particular the Boards of Appeal are no such independent courts, as has been discussed and shown many times on this blog. The examples of Mr. Mennessier and Mr. Corcoran provide ample evidence how dependent the individual Board of Appeal members are on decisions and actions by the EPO’s executive branch. The non-decision by the Enlarged Board of Appeal on Mr. Corcoran shows how intimidated even the members of the “highest judicial instance within the EPO” are and how threatened they feel in the absence of support by the Administrative Council. The Boards of Appeal have been moved, mostly against their will and on a very questionable legal foundation, to different premises outside Munich by a decision of the Administrative Council on a proposal by the President. Yet they still have no autonomy from the EPO President, neither financially, nor organizational, nor otherwise.

The political way to change and improve these deplorable circumstances is a thorny one. But at least some brave Bavarians have meanwhile woken up and rise to the challenge. As can be seen in the following Antrag FW Landtag (unfortunately, in German only), the state representatives of the “Freie Wähler” (free voters) party are requesting the Bavarian State Parliament to decide as follows:

The state government is requested to plead, on a national and European level, for measures within the European Patent Office that ensure independence of the Boards of Appeal and thus guarantee effective legal protection.

The reasoning is basically the story about Mr. Corcoran and the ILOAT decision, reinforced by the opinion by Prof. Broß. In addition, reference is made to the four pending constitutional complaints before the Federal Constitutional Court in regard to the EPO and “as a highlight” the complaint against the UPCA, which the representatives characterize as follows:

This happened before the successful request for a provisional order (File no. 2 BvR 739/97) which might be directed at the concerns with regard to the rule of law in proceedings before the EPO.

The authors of the Freie Wähler petition conclude:

Therefore, the state government should get involved, on a federal and European level, in order to abolish the existing deficits in legal protection and to make sure that the high reputation of this international organization is not damaged any further.

Who are the “Freie Wähler”? Well, I can tell you for sure that they are no revolutionaries; just look at their website or listen to the most recent speech of their chairman Mr. Aiwanger. They characterize themselves as „an important force in the political center. We support a policy that puts the human front and central, beyond any party ideology: factual, independent and close to citizens.” I think this is a fair description. They may not be very influential on a federal level, but their main ambition is to make an independent, non-ideological and value-conservative policy on a local and state level. If the Freie Wähler stand up and file a pretty sensible and non-ideological resolution like this one, then I would not be surprised if it will actually be passed by the state parliament on 20/2/2018. At least I hope so, even though it will obviously not change much in the short run.

But even if it does not, motions like this should really ring the alarm bells both at the Administrative Council level and in the German Ministry of Justice. We cannot and should not just sit and watch what happens on the Isar riverbanks. The EPO has deserved better and our constitutions demand it.

Comments (14)
Your email address will not be published.
default-avatar.png
Attentive observer
February 19, 2018 AT 10:21 PM

Thanks again to Thorsten to put the finger where it hurts. I see primarily the present head of the Administrative Council in demand. He is German, and should now start rocking the boat, otherwise the next president might continue on the same track as the leaving one. All the problems we have now, could have been avoided if the Administrative Council would have been up to its task. Already a lot of damage has been made. I simply hope that it is not irreversible, but I am not sure of this. The independence of the Boards of Appeal exists only on paper. The President of the Boards is no more than a fig leaf, as the only powers he has, are powers delegated to him by the President. Unless the Boards of Appeal are part of a structure separate of the EPO, and its members are not at the same time under the administrative control of the President of the EPO, they will not be independent. They should have a budget which cannot be controlled by the President. That the Boards use the administrative structure of the EPO for matters like payment of the salaries and social protection is certainly right, but all the functions having a direct relation with the statute of a court should be clearly separate and untouchable by the president. The IU should have no power over members of the Boards. It is only at this price that the Boards can be considered as independent. May be the GFCC will suggest chances in this direction. It is a shame for the German Federal Government that a purely local party has shown the guts to bring on the table the problems of the EPO. The Ministry of Justice, where Mr Ernst is a high ranking official, simply turned a blind eye to the problems encountered by staff at the EPO. The only thing it seems having been interested in, is that the EPO does not play havoc with its money. The fate of the people working there was of no interest to it. The Chairman of the Administrative Council should start the preparation of a conference of the ministers of the contracting states which is long overdue. By doing at least this he could show that he intends to change things at the EPO. All the measures pushed through by the Napoleon of the 10th floor to the detriment of staff should be reviewed and access to a correct justice, and not merely the ILO-AT, should be insured. The support, for instance of epi, has been dramatically absent all those years. Why? Only a few individuals, starting with Thorsten, have raised their voice. Are all the other cowards? I hope not. Techrigts: FINGERS OFF! You know what I mean.

default-avatar.png
With all due rispect
February 19, 2018 AT 10:40 PM

"motions like this should really ring the alarm bells both at the Administrative Council level and in the German Ministry of Justice" Nope, sorry Mr. Bausch, but the only bells to which the Administrative Council of the EPO usually reacts to are the cash register bells operated by Mr. Battistelli. Your Constitution will have to wait.

default-avatar.png
Maxi Milianeum
February 20, 2018 AT 10:42 AM

" If the Freie Wähler stand up and file a pretty sensible and non-ideological resolution like this one, then I would not be surprised if it will actually be passed by the state parliament on 20/2/2018." Dear Dr. Bausch, far be it from me to question your optimism about Bavarian democracy. But I wouldn't count on the motion passing if the CSU gets its way. But I suggest that you take a look at the contribution from Mr. Taubeneder (CSU) during the last debate on EPO affairs back in March 2017: https://www1.bayern.landtag.de/www/player/index.html?playlist=https://www1.bayern.landtag.de/lisp/res/metafiles/wp17/17_346/meta_vod_24176.json&startId= Maybe it is just me, but he gives the impression of singing off the same hymn sheet as the EPO management. It would not surprise me if the EPO PR department wrote the speech for him.

default-avatar.png
Thorsten Bausch response to Maxi Milianeum
February 20, 2018 AT 8:13 PM

Thank you for the link. A true gem to watch these representatives in action. Meanwhile I heard that today's session was postponed to March due to sickness of Ms. Schmidt. As to your comments about Mr. Taubeneder (whow, what a name!), you may indeed be right. Some of the language he used was clearly not his own (but the same is true for Ms. Schmidt, to be fair). Mr. Taubeneder's main argument in 2017 was that the Bavarian Parliament is not competent to judge about such matters, which are in the very capable hands of the Administrative Council (sarcasm added by me, but not much). If I were Mr. Taubeneder or any of his CSU fellows, I would rather argue that it is the failure of the SPD-led Federal Ministry of Justice to apply more pressure on the Administrative Council to change things at the EPO to the better.

default-avatar.png
The Swedish Chef
February 20, 2018 AT 5:06 PM

@ Attentive Observer "The President of the Boards is no more than a fig leaf, as the only powers he has, are powers delegated to him by the President." The interesting part here is that we don't know what powers have been delegated to him. A notice was published in the Official Journal informing the public that a delegation of functions and powers had taken place but the actual text of the delegation has never been published. https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/official-journal/2017/03/a19.html In other words we know that there has been a delegation of functions and powers but we don't know to what extent. So much for "Glasnost" at the EPO.

Leave a Comment
Your email address will not be published.
Clear all
Become a contributor!
Interested in contributing? Submit your proposal for a blog post now and become a part of our legal community! Contact Editorial Guidelines