For employees of international organisations their employer is at the same timelegislator and judge. In aninterview with SUEPOMr. Matthew Parish comments on this situation.

Mr. Parish is an International lawyer specializing in sovereign and international dispute resolution.He is also the author of the book"Mirages of international justice" (preorder at Amazon)

The series of SUEPO interviewscontinues with an interview withJesper Kongstad, Chairman of the Administrative Counciland Director-General and CEO of the Danish Patent and Trademark Office.

From the interview:"A more personal goal for me is that working with the new President of the Office, we will be able to create a much closer cooperationbetween the AC and the management of the Office, between the AC and staff, and indirectly betweenmanagement and staff..."

The Administrative Council of the EPO met on 14 and 15 December in TheHague. The agenda (CA/146/10) was dominated by financial issuessuch as the budget for 2011 and questions concerning the financing of staffpensions and health insurance. Two documents were alsopresented (CA/155/10 and CA/156/10) which reported on the resultsof staff surveys held during the last months of the previous presidency.The Administrative Council noted with approval that discussions between thenew administration and the staff representation about how to address theseissues are ongoing.

In the series of SUEPO interviewsPeter Drahos takes a critical view atthe functioning of the global patent system.Peter Drahos is Professor in Law and Director of the Centre for the Governanceof Knowledge and Development at the Australian National University Chair inIntellectual Property at Queen Mary, University of London. His latest book entitled"The Global Governance of Knowledge" is based on a detailed study of the patentsystems of forty-five rich and poor countries.

A citation from the interview:"The challenge for patent offices in the 21st century is whether they willtake on more of a leadership role in networks made up of civil society,health departments, competition authorities and patent offices becomingchampions of a people's social contract or whether they will spend theirtime handing out customer satisfaction surveys to their multinationalclients and hoping for lots of ticks of approval.The latter, I predict, will do little for the morale of their examiners."

As reported previously, the staff representation at the EPOhas criticized the Organisation for not respecting the rights of external staff employed withinthe Organsation. This week the staff representation of the International Labour Organisation (ILO)issued a press release in which it also demands decentworking conditions for their colleagueson flexible contracts. SUEPO sent a letter of support to the ILO Staff Union.

The Administrative Council of the EPO met from 26 to 28 October in TheHague. The agenda (CA/106/10 Rev. 1) was relatively short. The appointmentsof new Vice-Presidents for DG1 (search and examination) and for DG5 (legalmatters) were amongst the more important internal matters. The successfulcandidates are Mr. Minnoye (BE) and Mr. Lutz (DE).Topics ofinterest for the external stakeholders include the amendments to theImplementing Regulations to Rule 71 EPC (CA/81/10 Rev. 1) and Rule 161 EPC(CA/134/10 Rev. 1 f).As expected, the proposals were approved by the Council.

Over at the Social Science Research Network, Matthew Parish has a fascinatingessayon the problem of accountability of international organisations. Political oversight, Parish suggests,is generally weak, yet most international organisations seem to operate in a legal vacuum as well, withwide-ranging immunity from national legal proceedings. Parish's analysis concludes that the legalimmunities enjoyed by international organisations are in need of review.

Bruno van Pottelsberghe's latest paper, "The Quality Factor in Patent Systems" puts forward a new methodology that aims atcomparing quality across patent systems.

Quality is defined as the extent to which patent systems comply with their own patentability conditionsin a transparent way. This definition makes it possible to gauge quality using a two-layer framework:the first layer is composed of the legal standards that describe the patentability conditions of anational patent system (subject-matter, novelty, inventiveness, fees). The second layer is characterisedby the operational design put in place to meet those legal standards.

The staff representation has regularly criticised recruitment practice at the EPO.After numerous attempts to discuss the matter internally, last year thestaff committee submitted a document (CA/174/09)on the employment conditions forexternal staff to the Administrative Council of the EPO. The document was ignored.Since then a number of complaints have been submitted to national courts.The press (Spiegel andSZ) has reported on these complaints.

In the mean-time an internal appeal filed 4 years ago has matured into a judgment:ILO-AT 2919.The Tribunal ruled that the EPO's General Advisory Committee (GAC),in which the staff representation holds half of the seats, should have been consultedon the Office's outsourcing policy. This is not the only recent judgment onrecruitment procedures filed by staff representatives in which the Tribunal foundin favour of the complainant, seeILO-AT 2819,ILO-AT 2762,ILO-AT 2919,ILO-AT 2791and, in the same session ILO-AT 2920and ILO-AT 2921.

It is noted, however, that the amount of damages and costs awarded to the complainantsis diminishing. In the 2919 judgment the threecomplainants were awarded 300 Euros incosts, together. This represents about 1% of the real costs. The Tribunal further carefullyavoided entering into the substance of the case. This means that if the EPO, after GACconsultation, decides to maintain the current practice a new appeal will have to be filed,on which a judgment can then be expected in 4 years.

The 3rd day continued with topics to be discussed in closed session,amongst which further nominations and the level of compensation awardedto delegates. A decision on the Vice-President posts is only expected in October.The open part of the session resumed with a discussion on "Fee reform and sustainablefinancing of the European patent system" as outlined in CA/91/10,CA/82/10,CA/39/10, CA/38/10,CA/36/10,CA/34/10 and CA/33/10.Interestingly, only the representative of epiwas critical of the Office's implicit position that major problems are caused by alarge proportion of applicants "gaming" the system.

The last day of the Council is traditionally the day on which staff matters are dealt with.True to form the proposal on reform of the financing of the sickness insurance,CA/66/10 Rev. 1 and Corr. 1,was the last item on the Council's 3-day agenda.The document was dealt with together with the Central Staff Committee's documentCA/94/10 on the same topic. In a series of questions the Chairman of the Central Staff Committeehighlighted the deficiencies of the proposal and the administration's failure to demonstrate clearlythe need for such fundamental reform. Despite these interventions, 26 of the delegations, includingFrance and Denmark, voted in favour, with 10 delegations abstaining and 1 voting against.With that the decision was passed.