Oral question on the social deterioration within the EPO: reply from the Government

On 21 February, I asked the Government about the deterioration of the social climate at the European Patent Office (EPO).

Mr. President. I call Mr Richard Yung, the author of Question No. 1578, which is addressed to the Minister for Economic Affairs and Finance.

Mr Richard Yung. My question, which unfortunately recurs, concerns the deterioration of the social climate within the European Patent Office, the EPO.
Since 2010, the measures implemented by the management of the EPO have led to a decline in the fundamental rights of staff: I am thinking in particular of the limitation of the right to strike, the questioning of trade union freedom or the infringement of the right to collective bargaining.
It seems that the EPO is the organisation most often challenged before the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation, the body called upon to rule on staff disputes in international organisations.

In a 2015 ruling, the Court of Appeal in The Hague ruled that several measures taken by the EPO’s management were illegal. The latter appealed to the Court of Cassation, invoking the immunity from execution enjoyed by international organizations. Since the beginning of 2016, several sanctions have been pronounced against trade union delegates: three dismissals and one demotion. In addition, investigations and disciplinary proceedings are ongoing.
In a resolution adopted on 16 March 2016, the Administrative Council of the EPO, which is its highest authority, asks the President of the Office to “ensure that disciplinary sanctions and procedures are not only fair, but also considered strong, and to study the possibility of recourse to an external body for review, arbitration or mediation”.

This resolution was ignored by the EPO’s management, which merely organised a social conference “à la Potemkin”, one might say.
The Bavarian Parliament has recently taken up and debated the issue, even though the EPO’s immunity from jurisdiction and execution makes it difficult for states to take action.

The proper functioning of the EPO is one of the indispensable conditions for the success of the European patent, which has been proven, and for the implementation of the future patent with unitary effect. I therefore ask the Government what solutions it intends to propose, particularly through the French delegation to the EPO Administrative Council, in order to encourage the resumption of social dialogue and the emergence of a new mode of governance, as well as the re-examination of sanctions.

Mr President. I call the Secretary of State.

Ms Axelle Lemaire, Secretary of State to the Minister of the Economy and Finance, with responsibility for Digitalisation and Innovation. Mr Senator, the European Patent Office, established by the European Patent Convention of 5 October 1973, has been an operational intergovernmental organisation since 1977. It employs almost 7 000 agents from 30 different states. Its Administrative Council, which brings together representatives of 38 Member States, has decided to reform the Staff Regulations of the EPO in order to ensure its long-term financial viability.
This reform, which covers the entire social framework – pensions, remuneration, social benefits, etc. – must be implemented in consultation with staff representatives. This is the beginning of the story…

In February 2015, the Court of Appeal in The Hague called into question certain decisions taken internally at the EPO. The Office appealed to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, which, in a decision of 20 January 2017, overturned the judgments of the courts in The Hague and confirmed the Office’s jurisdictional immunity.
In March 2016, France supported the initiative taken by the Administrative Council of the EPO, which passed a resolution underlining the urgency of resolving the social problems facing the organisation.

This resolution, passed almost a year ago, provided in particular for a social audit to be carried out, the presentation to the Administrative Council of changes to the Staff Regulations and the suspension of the disciplinary proceedings initiated.
What is the situation today?

The objective, independent study by PricewaterhouseCoopers, presented in October 2016, highlights the deterioration in the social climate within the Office. This deterioration damages the image of the organisation; it also, indirectly but certainly, damages France’s image abroad and within international organisations, despite very favourable conditions of remuneration for staff compared to other international organisations.
This study recommends ways of improving existing disciplinary procedures.

The March 2016 resolution provided for the revision by the Administrative Council of the Staff Regulations of the EPO, in order to develop guidelines on internal investigations and disciplinary procedures. The French representatives on the Board of Directors will be very attentive to ensure that this revision is conducive to calming social dialogue within the institution. Indeed, this is what is at stake.

No less than five ministers have mobilised alongside the members of parliament to explain these issues: Emmanuel Macron, Michel Sapin, Christophe Sirugue, myself, but also the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jean-Marc Ayrault. We were strongly involved in ensuring that the decisions adopted at the EPO’s Administrative Council meetings comply with the rules and case law of international law.

The Secretary of State for Industry, Christophe Sirugue, who has had several exchanges with the EPO management, continues to be fully mobilized to reaffirm France’s desire to see an unacceptable social situation normalized. This standardisation is essential in order to create the conditions for greater efficiency of the EPO in the context of the introduction of the European patent with unitary effect, which should enable Europe to stand out in terms of intellectual and industrial property in the world of innovation.

Mr President. I call Mr Richard Yung.

Mr Richard Yung. Madam Secretary of State, I agree with you that the current situation is detrimental to the staff, whose motivation it affects, and to the Office as a whole. It is also damaging to the reputation of our country, and I am afraid that there will be further damage.
While taking note of the Government’s determined action, I note that things are in fact happening in the EPO Administrative Council, which is the determining body. It is therefore there that France must make its voice heard.

Another possibility, provided for in the Munich Convention, would be to convene a Council of Ministers responsible for industrial property. It could discuss a number of issues: the patent with unitary effect, which you mentioned and which is due to come into force soon, plant patents, and the management of EPO staff.
This is a proposal that I leave to your wisdom, Madam Secretary of State.

To read the entire article “Oral question on the social deterioration within the EPO: reply from the Government”, click here.