In the European Patent Office, Hans van Houtte Helps Stack the Appeals Committee (Internal Tribunal) in Favour of the Dictators Who Break Laws

posted by Roy Schestowitz on Jan 21, 2024,
updated Jan 21, 2024

THIS past October (i.e. just earlier this winter when we spent several weeks upgrading the site) the EPO had another meeting in which to reaffirm the policies of Benoît Battistelli, including his buddy's (António Campinos). They put in place a controversial pawn of the management, but it was buried somewhere in the middle:

Here's the full text:

176th meeting of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation (Munich, 6 October 2023)

The Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation held its 176th meeting in Munich in a hybrid format on 6 October 2023 under its Chairperson Josef KRATOCHVÍL (CZ).

The Council heard the Office's activities report in the form of a presentation, which summarised the achievements of the past months, including the launch of the first EPO Campus Days, the developments in registration of patents with unitary effect, the official launch of the EPO Observatory on Patents and Technology and the further progress made in various areas of co-operation with member states as well as in reinforced partnership and validation agreements. Many delegations and observers congratulated the President, his management and staff. Delegations also had an exchange of views on the Office’s quality dialogue as well as on a number of strategic developments also related to SP2028. The Council also praised the Office for the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the EPC on 5October.

Turning to strategic decisions, the Council unanimously authorised the President to open negotiations on a validation agreement with the Republic of Costa Rica.

Regarding appointments and selections, the Council

• unanimously decided to appoint Ms Karin ŽVOKELJ (SI) as deputy chairperson of the Budget and Finance Committee;
• elected Mr Margus VIHER (EE) as member of the Board of the Administrative Council;
• unanimously decided, in closed session, to renew the term of office Mr Are STENVIK as member of the Boards of Appeal Committee;
• unanimously decided, in closed session, to re-appoint Mr Martin Paul WAGNER as external member to the Supervisory Board of the RFPSS;
• unanimously decided, in closed session, to renew the terms of office of Mr Hans VAN HOUTTE as vice-chairperson as well as Mr Per FOSS and Ms Leonor TRINDADE as members of the Appeals Committee;
• unanimously decided to renew the term of office of Sir Nicholas FORWOOD as chairperson, Mr Markus MOHLER as deputy chairperson and also Mr P.H. BLOK, Ms Alicja ADAMCZAK, Mr Lanfranco TENAGLIA and Mr Simon THORLEY as members of the Council Disciplinary Committee.

The Council also decided on the appointment, re-appointment and promotion of members of the Boards of Appeal and of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, based on proposals by the President of the Boards of Appeal.

Furthermore, the Council noted the activities reports of the Chairperson and the President of the Boards of Appeal, as well as the report of the chairperson of the Boards of Appel Committee.

The Council also noted the oral report given by the Office on the current status of the Unitary Patent.

Finally, as part of the implementation of the second set of Basket I measures related to the modernisation of the EPO’s external governance, delegations exchanged views on aspects of a proposed policy for the publication of and access to Council documents, so that a revised proposal can be presented at the next Council meeting.

Council Secretariat

Just to remove any doubts we've searched our archives and indeed, this person acts in bad faith. He's not there to help justice or the staff.

How does that bode for his role in the Iran – United States Claims tribunal?

Is he being promoted/rewarded/advanced for serving power rather than law?

Not too shockingly, the staff representatives reacted to this by writing to staff:

Re-appointments of Vice-Chairs in the Appeals Committee

Dear colleagues,

Mr van Houtte, one of the Vice-Chairs of the internal Appeals Committee (ApC), has apparently been re-appointed end of September 2023 pursuant to Article 111(2)(a) and (7) ServRegs. The information came to the knowledge of the Central Staff Committee (CSC) solely by consulting an Intranet page of the Appeals Committee which states that his term of office runs until 30 September 2026.

The CSC was also not involved in any of the selection procedures leading to this second re-appointment. Reasons and criteria were not given and neither the CSC nor the staff were transparently informed by an announcement in the office news on the intranet.

In an open letter to the President, the CSC therefore requests that a nominee of the CSC is given transparent access to the details of the selection procedures in order to confirm that the procedures complied with the principles of sound administration.

A copy of the letter can be found here.

Sincerely yours,

What the people at the Central Staff Committee (CSC) are too polite to point out that the people who made this decision or merely accepted this request are basically bribed by the requester. What sort of governance of this?

Here is their full open letter, which was sent a week before Christmas:

European Patent Office
80298 Munich
Germany

Central Staff Committee
Comité central du personnel
Zentraler Personalausschuss

centralSTCOM@epo.org

Reference: sc23145cl

Date: 18/12/2023

European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY
Mr António Campinos
President of the EPO
ISAR - R.1081

By email: president@epo.org

OPEN LETTER

Reappointment of one of the Vice-Chairs of the Appeals Committee The Central Staff Committee (CSC) has become aware that one of the Vice-Chairs of the internal Appeals Committee, Mr van Houtte, has apparently been reappointed end of September 2023 pursuant to Article 111(2)(a) and (7) ServRegs. The information came to the knowledge of the CSC solely by consulting an Intranet page of the Appeals Committee which states that his term of office runs until 30 September 2026.

This is already the second re-appointment of Mr van Houtte, who was selected by your predecessor in a non-transparent procedure and without any involvement of the CSC. The CSC was also not involved in any of the selection procedures leading to one of the reappointments. Reasons and criteria for Mr van Houtte’s reappointment were not given and neither the CSC nor the staff were transparently informed about the reappointment by an announcement in the office news on the intranet.

The CSC has taken positive note of your invitation to nominate an observer for the selection procedure for the new Chair in 2021 and for a new Vice-Chair in 2023. This is considered as a first step in the right direction towards an Appeals Committee with a more balanced composition, even though the CSC holds to the view that the selection board for the Chair and Vice-Chairs of the Appeals Committee should comprise members nominated by the CSC and that their appointment should be based on mutual agreement¹.

The quiet renewal of one of the Vice-Chair’s term of office to a total of at least nine years now raises questions and again undermines staff’s

_____________

¹ see, inter alia, our letter dated 7 May 2020 (Annex) or the open letter of 13 August 2021

---

confidence in the Appeals Committee and the perception of its independence and impartiality. While it is true that the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO ruled in Judgment 4550, consideration 16, that the amendment of the Service Regulations in 2014, which states that the CSC no longer may appoint one of the deputy chairmen of the Appeals Committee, “do[es] not infringe the Appeals Committee’s independence, or the employees’ right to a fair internal appeals procedure”, this cannot be taken as a carte blanche to appoint or reappoint the Chair and the Vice-Chairs of the Appeals Committee without any involvement of the CSC.

The CSC therefore requests that a nominee of the CSC is given transparent access to the details of the selection procedures leading to the appointment and reappointments of Mr van Houtte in order to confirm that the procedures complied with the principles of sound administration.

Yours sincerely,

Derek Kelly

Chairman of the Central Staff Committee

---

European Patent Office
80298 Munich
Germany

Central Staff Committee
Comité central du personnel
Zentraler Personalausschuss

Tel. +49 -89- 2399 - 4355
+43 -1-52126 - 305
+49 -30-25901 - 800
+31 -70-340 - 2028

centralSTCOM@epo.org

Reference:re20081cl-0.3.1/5.2

Date: 07.05.2020

European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY
Mr António Campinos
President of the EPO
ISAR - R.1081

Appeals Committee – Your letter of 22 April 2020

Dear Mr President,

The functioning of the Appeals Committee (ApC) has been a recurring topic in our discussions, both orally and in writing. In your recent letter of 22 April 2020, you mentioned the necessity of discussions with all stakeholders before submitting proposals to the Administrative Council. We share the opinion that a discussion with the Central Staff Committee is both necessary and urgent.

We would like to re-iterate our understanding of the role of the ApC. While fully supporting the idea of a change of culture from litigation to dialogue in the EPO, we believe that a properly functioning ApC is indispensable for the smooth running of the Office and – as confirmed by the ILOAT – an important element of the judicial system as a whole. Properly functioning means that the ApC can deliver opinions in short time and in a neutral manner.

The opinions should reflect basic principles of law and the case law of the Tribunal. Well-founded and clearly elaborated opinions allow the President to make decisions following the (unanimous) opinions of the ApC. This gives staff members confidence in the ApC. As a consequence, conflicts are more often than not solved internally and without subsequent escalation to the ILOAT. It is unfortunate that many appellants currently perceive the ApC as being just an intermediate step which is necessary before they can lodge a complaint in Geneva.

---

Five elements are key for the neutrality and good functioning of the ApC:

- The nominations of the Chair and the Vice-Chairs of the ApC should be based on mutual agreement between the President and the Central Staff Committee and should respect diversity;

- All staff members should be eligible to function as members of the ApC;

- The independence of the members should be protected by the Service Regulations;

- The procedure before the ApC should be guided at all stages by the principles of fairness and equal treatment. Proper fact finding and the right to be heard are mandatory principles, in line with the case law of the Tribunal;

- Members of the ApC should be given enough time in order to perform their duties properly.

The swift delivery of opinions can be achieved by adequate staffing of the Secretariat of the ApC.

We are ready to embark immediately into discussions with you. A small working group with motivated members from both sides would be appreciated. We therefore nominate Frédérique Chambonnet and Michael Sampels (alternate: Thomas Franchitti) from our side, and look forward to being invited by you soon to a kick-off meeting.

Yours sincerely,

Joachim Michels
Chairman of the Central Staff Committee

cc.: Ms Nellie Simon; Vice-President DG4
Mr Christoph Ernst; Vice-President DG5
Ms Karin Seegert; Chief of Staff

So even in 2020 this was highlighted as a problem, actionable by invoking a tribunal in Geneva whose judgement the Office disregards when it suits it.

As a Professor specialising in "International Arbitration" at Leuven Law School (as per his CV) let's hope he teaches students not just to serve plutocrats, despots, and autocrats. Then again, it is usually them who resort to arbitration. He's like those famed "Economists" whose sole role is to justify the wealth and power of the corrupt and manipulative, passing new laws to make it "illegal" to challenge them.

The confidence in the EPO's internal tribunal will be eternally wounded, injured by appointments that are made by those are meant to be judged. In the past we saw that they even overrode and unilaterally superseded decisions, proving that the internal tribunal can be no better than a classic kangaroo court (for showmanship, for optics) with merely "advisory" powers. █