The Council of the European Union has adopted on 12 May 2014, Guidelines on Freedom of Expression Online and Offline.
The Council of the European Union has adopted on 12 May 2014, Guidelines on Freedom of Expression Online and Offline.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has proposed a number of measures to increase the accountability of international organisations.These include holding States responsible for the actions of international organisations that they assist, contribute to, or of which they are members.
The Assembly invites all Council of Europe member States, and international organisations of which they are a part to formulate clear guidelines regarding the waiv er of immunity by international organisations or otherwise limiting the breadth of the immunity theyenjoy before national courts, in order to ensure that the necessary functional immunity does not shield them from scrutiny regarding, in particular, their adherence to non-derogable human rights standards.
The Report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights from Mr José María BENEYTO is available here.
The European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) which represents more than 265 unions has issued a communiqué.
The General Secretary of EPSU has directly addressed Benoît Battistelli and the Administrative Council.
Members of the European Parliament have posed questions.
These questions serve as a complement to earlier questions (en,fr,de) posed by Kerstens and Maij (PvdA) on 27 February 2015.
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: