This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2020/01/30/koch-case-spun-as-moot/.
Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Law, Patents at 4:09 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Letter from Anette Koch to Battistelli
Summary: Another dark episode for EPO staff, staff representatives, and even ILO/ILO-AT (repeatedly failing to uphold the law at the EPO)
REGULAR READERS may already be familiar with Koch v EPO [1, 2, 3, 4], a case we last dealt with back in November, having researched some public postings. The latest developments, which are outlined with original documents in the tweets below, show that the management of the European Patent Office (EPO), i.e. lawyers of António Campinos and his cohorts, successfully managed to thwart any meaningful consideration of the case. ILO-AT has, as usual, gone along with it, demonstrating how toothless if not useless it can be. The tweets of relevance are added below in chronological order. Many people inside the EPO are likely familiar with this case already. It concerns a former staff representative.
=> 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | some public postings | ↺ EPO | ↺ António Campinos
The Tribunal's unexpected reaction of 15-11-2019 in re AT 5-4384, after cases AT 5-4384 and AT 5-4532 were examined by the Tribunal during its 129th session, according to its e-mail of 13-11-2019 to me pic.twitter.com/LUslRf1T7o
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) November 18, 2019
…and my reply of today: pic.twitter.com/pFK4TNKn6o
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) November 18, 2019
Another unexpected development, once more… this just arrived. #EPO #AdminTribunal_of_the_ILO pic.twitter.com/kZlZGD33FW
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) November 19, 2019
Whoever attempts to violate human dignity: you just abandon your own.
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) December 18, 2019
The Internal Appeals Committee for the original internal appeals of AT5-4384 and AT5-4532 was composed of 3 members nominated by the President and 2 "volunteers" following the President's call for volunteers representing staff.
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 12, 2020
This was not a balanced composition, as the Tribunal correctly ruled in Judgments no. 3694 under 6., and no. 3784, under 6.
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 12, 2020
The Tribunal ruled, literally: "The balance sought to be achieved by the composition of this body, which includes members appointed by the Administration and the staff representation, is a fundamental guarantee of its impartiality." Judgment 3785, under 6. https://t.co/DsGqFVp7Ib
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 12, 2020
The Tribunal continued, lit.: "That balanced composition is an essential feature underpinning its existence. Without it, it is not the Appeals Committee.”" Judgment 3785, under 6.
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 12, 2020
In reaction to Judgments 3785 and 3694 the EPO just changed Article 36(2) ServRegs to…allow "volunteers" nominated by the President or determined by lot to represent staff in the Int. Appeals Committee.
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 12, 2020
This composition is applied also to the so-called "re-run" internal appeals, "re-run" on the EPO's initiative only. https://t.co/FP0QaIj8nS
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 12, 2020
Meaning: if the Int. Appeals Committee's composition was unbalanced at the time of the original appeals, it will be just as unbalanced for the new appeals. They're just formally "re-run", to cause delay, preferably for ever… https://t.co/YNnqpun9c1
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 12, 2020
In the past the Tribunal correctly ruled that final decisions by an international organisation creating rights, like those in my cases AT5-4384 and AT5-4532, may not be unilaterally withdrawn, see Judgment 2906, under 8. (all judgments: see triplex (no.), https://t.co/cZRlBz3rlB)
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 12, 2020
Contrary to Judgment 2906, under 8., the EPO withdrew its final decisions in my cases AT5-4384 and AT5-4532 and formally "re-runs" them in internal appeal: see evidence. https://t.co/0CK5KvLJCg pic.twitter.com/xu3OUsKRVP
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 13, 2020
In both cases, AT 5-4384 and AT 5-4532, there were extensive written exchanges of the parties on the substance(!) of the complaints, i.e. not(!) restricted to the issue of the unlawful composition of the Internal Appeals Committee at the time at which it submitted its Opinions.
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 14, 2020
In both cases there were: the complaint, the EPO's reply, my rejoinder, the EPO's surrejoinder, my reply to the surrejoinder, the EPO's reply to the latter, and my (at least incomplete) reply to the latter. https://t.co/5rFCjAvs93
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 14, 2020
In case AT 5-4532 the EPO waived its right to reply to my last incomplete reply in that case. https://t.co/ciOpxVavU4
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 14, 2020
In case AT 5-4384 the EPO submitted (i) another reply of 2-10-2019 (below) and (ii) the EPO's annexes 42-46 (in line with the Tribunal's letter) – to all of which the complainant was not allowed to reply. https://t.co/FDVnihLipL pic.twitter.com/eT7aOcM3l3
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 14, 2020
All my submissions in these cases concerned the full(!) substance of my complaints and were not restricted to the procedural issue of the composition of the internal appeals committee. https://t.co/BCS3Cs4F8T
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 14, 2020
Nevertheless the EPO requests both cases to be deemed "moot", see below, and guess why…because they are formally "re-run" in internal appeal upon the EPO's unilateral decision. https://t.co/lxZoj6bJ1V pic.twitter.com/N1jAmMtbRi
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 14, 2020
The EPO uses the formal re-running of internal appeals to impede the complainant's rights of access to the Tribunal under Article 6 ECHR, see, e.g., page 5 of its reply in re AT 5-4384 of 10-4-2019, under 19., here below. pic.twitter.com/68miuARdBX
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 14, 2020
During my accelerated procedure under Dutch law with the scope of AT 5-4384 and AT 5-4532, the EPO had its immunity upheld by alleging (a.o.) that the ILO Admin.Tribunal would treat its cases within 39 months on average, see page2 of their reply to my writ,4nd para,1rst sentence pic.twitter.com/CYycD70asQ
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 15, 2020
In re AT 5-4384 the alleged term of 39 months has already lapsed on 10-9-2019, in re AT 5-4532 it would lapse on 29-2-2020 – yet,if the Tribunal remitted my cases to the EPO's int. appeals system for formally "re-running" them,the term of 39 months would be surpassed indefinitely
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 15, 2020
I would have to repeat/double(…?) my efforts and costs, to re-send my documents with a new decision and opinion of the int. appeals committee and to have to defend my position once more in extensive written proceedings – which are painful to me because of my chronic illness. https://t.co/uUYjpYQWOn
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 15, 2020
As the EPO would take the final decision on the new internal appeals "re-run" under rules changed to my detriment (s. my tweets of 12-1-2020 on the composition of the appeals committee), I could not reasonably expect any improved result from the new internal appeals procedures. https://t.co/yradQxUCTJ
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 15, 2020
Worse is that the EPO, by introducing other procedural flaws in the new int. app'ls procedure, could infinitely delay and thus impede the treatment of my cases in substance contrary to Article 6 ECHR, if my cases were remitted to the EPO upon the EPO's request ("re-run"). https://t.co/JB5RE7BVAS
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 15, 2020
My cases would not be treated in substance(!) "within a reasonable time" in line with Article 6 ECHR by the ILO Admin. Tribunal as the independent judge according to the EPO's ServiceRegulations, if the Tribunal remanded them to the EPO (for the "re-run"). https://t.co/DO6DXVIdt5
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 15, 2020
As the EPO itself is responsible for the unlawful composition of the int. appeals committee, it would benefit from its own turpitude, if the Tribunal remanded my cases to the EPO (for the formal "re-run" in internal appeals). https://t.co/TmFvnH7faY
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 15, 2020
In that case the EPO would have effectively prevented treatment of these cases in substance by an indep. judge twice by mere use of procedural law: 1. by invoking its immunity before Dutch courts, 2. by introducing a flaw into its internal appeals procedure. #Article6ECHR https://t.co/F44UJYCc4g
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 15, 2020
After 6(!) years from the original adverse decision in case AT 5-4384 (as attached) and in view of the nature of this case, I feel fully entitled to respectfully request treatment of my cases against the #EPO by the Admin. Tribunal of the #ILO in substance. pic.twitter.com/X0Udacf9b0
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 8, 2020
After 6(!) years from the original adverse decision in case AT 5-4532 (as attached) and in view of the nature of this case, I feel fully entitled to respectfully request treatment of my cases against the #EPO by the Admin. Tribunal of the #ILO in substance. pic.twitter.com/AEOS0yNr11
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 8, 2020
I respectfully requested the Tribunal to have both cases, i.e. AT5-4384 on irregular dismissal, and AT5-4532 on the EPO's refusal to have a complete employment medical examination conducted, to be treated in substance and always maintained this request.
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 14, 2020
In the ILO Admin.Tribunal's Judgment 2906, under 8., the Tribunal ruled that a decision affecting an official becomes "binding" on the organisation which has taken it and creates rights for the official as soon as it has been notified to them[..]. https://t.co/I0cFXOyIqE
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 18, 2020
Such decision may be withdrawn (by the organisation) only, if unlawful and not final yet, see the ILO Admin.Tribunal's Judgment 2906, under 8., see database Triblex on https://t.co/yLPTFiMifw https://t.co/EameH9P6Qp
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 18, 2020
Thus, contrary to Judgment 2906, under 8., and to the principle of legal certainty, the EPO withdrew its final decision in my case AT 5-4532 and "re-ran" the internal appeal (in parallel to AT 5-4532 before the ILO Admin.Tribunal), see below. https://t.co/Px38M5h9VM
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 18, 2020
Likewise, contrary to Judgment 2906, under 8., and to the principle of legal certainty, the EPO withdrew its final decision in my case AT 5-4384 and "re-ran" the internal appeal (in parallel to AT 5-4384 before the ILO Admin.Tribunal), see below. https://t.co/a6L7O6Ynds
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 18, 2020
At the same time the EPO maintains the substantive decisions of 19-09-2013 and of 9-10-2013 against me in cases AT 5-4384 and AT 5-4532, respectively, i.e. the sanction of being irregularly dismissed (allegedly having "voluntarily" retired) was not withdrawn, of course.
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 18, 2020
Likewise the EPO upholds the decision of 9-10-2013 not to complete the employment medical examination by a medical committee, of course – allegedly, because I would have "voluntarily" retired…very plausible, of course ;-( https://t.co/MSHM2NVs4v
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 18, 2020
The EPO uses the purely formal re-running of my internal appeals, after extensive exchanges before the ILO Tribunal in cases AT 5-4384 and AT 5-4532, to impair my rights under Article 6 ECHR, see, e.g., page 5 of its reply in re AT 5-4384 of 10-4-2019, under 19., here below. https://t.co/193W9r9ciR
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 18, 2020
The EPO requested the ILO Admin. Tribunal to have my cases AT 5-4384 and AT 5-4532 deemed moot, for that reason (see here below), contrary to my fundamental rights under Article 6 ECHR, to the principle of legal certainty and to Judgment no. 2906, under 8. https://t.co/FP9evpaxn6
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 18, 2020
If the EPO succeeded with its requests to have my cases AT5-4384 and AT5-4532 deemed moot, it would have prevented treatment of these cases in substance(!) by an independent court/tribunal already twice(!), see here below (the first time in a "kort geding" under Dutch law). https://t.co/11DtVKUYCY
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 18, 2020
If my cases were remanded to the EPO (after a change of the rules for internal appeals to the detriment of the appellants),this would cause indefinite delay of the substantive treatment of my cases -with further pain and costs for me ('iemand kapot procederen', in het Nederl.) https://t.co/yradQxUCTJ
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 18, 2020
Pain (s. last tweet): because of what was considered an occupational disease (not only by me, but in an employment medical examination under Dutch law, on my initiative), herniated disks in my cervical vertebral column etc. I have pain now and will stop. pic.twitter.com/DtjQ4D5ln5
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 18, 2020
If the EPO succeeded with its requests to have my cases AT5-4384 and AT5-4532 deemed moot, it would have prevented treatment of these cases in substance(!) by a quasi-judicial instance already 3 times,see below and my procedure before the Dutch "College" for Human Rights(extract) https://t.co/AqUxs0Oa4f pic.twitter.com/GvsCjPUpQF
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 20, 2020
Why have I been deprived of access to an independent judge for the treatment of my cases in substance for so long already? Not because of my performance, in any case, see as attached (relevant extr. of staff report 2000 to 2001). pic.twitter.com/IQ71CByJyD
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 20, 2020
Due to my exclusion from most non-PC expert work in the EPO (partly admitted mobbing/"harassment" though the EPO forbade me to disclose the respective document) I started to diversify my work by working for the staff committee in 2009 as a legal expert. I hoped for less PC work. pic.twitter.com/Kx0sMMrSeH
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 20, 2020
Despite admitted mobbing following an external Ombudsman procedure, the EPO always refrained from following the Ombudsman's advice to rehabilitate me – and reduced my work to PC-intensive core tasks. https://t.co/gxD2eSyPmn
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 20, 2020
This way I became chronically ill (starting from 2009), see the OH Physicians' conclusions and the OH Physician's notification to the Dutch Centre for Occupational Diseases (NCvB) from 2015. pic.twitter.com/4l6B2HDL3p
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 20, 2020
I was a very committed staff representative and worked for staff with the utmost integrity (just as I worked as an EPO examiner, b.t.w.), from 2010 to 2012 also as an elected staff committee member (I was elected as the 4th in terms of votes in the last ballot paper elections). https://t.co/gxD2eSyPmn pic.twitter.com/dcRLuV0rh1
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 20, 2020
For my examiner's work: see extract of my staff report (for my work as an EPO examiner) for the period Oct. 2005 to 31-1-2007(!), the very last one that was reasonably fair, though "excellent" could have been argued, instead of "very good"…(I had no expert tasks, though…). pic.twitter.com/Le0Br0KIyT
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 20, 2020
In my newsletter no. 4, I blew the whistle on fire safety in the Rijswijk buildings of the EPO, among others (the fire safety issue had persisted for many years already then). pic.twitter.com/2owLtD5egx
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 21, 2020
I also provided information on the so-called "Areas of Competence" (AoCs) and on the developments regarding the EPO's policy on "Dignity of staff" (I was the Central Staff Committee's nominee in the group for designing that policy then). #newsletter_no4 #my_staff_committee_work pic.twitter.com/fFmIJncytT
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 21, 2020
The last topics of my #newletter_no4 were (the next round of) staff reporting and the staff committee elections (to be electronic and organised by an external company commissioned by the EPO management). #my_staff_committee_work pic.twitter.com/smPkZi2sL8
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 21, 2020
The EPO management seems to have improved fire safety in the (old) Rijswijk buildings after my publication, according to what I heard (though the old main building/"tower" is currently broken down, there was no new building yet in 2012). https://t.co/1XZQHmE3N2
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 21, 2020
After my staff committee period (as I had expected, I was not re-elected in the electronic elections…), my former director who had been deemed guilty of mobbing/"harassment" in 2007, was allowed to return to the Joint Cluster in which I worked.
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 21, 2020
When there were new incidents of mobbing (he tried to withhold an opposition case from me and shouted at me in the bicycle shed), I complained to the management in a confidential e-mail (which I will not disclose here), with a copy to some staff representatives of my trust. https://t.co/6Abb6P1aTe
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 21, 2020
My chronic illness had already aggravated at that time (which I had duly reported to the EPO's Occupational Health Service). https://t.co/eLwSz0D3Ty pic.twitter.com/3ChnRO6S9g
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 21, 2020
Therefore I requested a Medical Committee (MedC) under the EPO's Service Regulations on 13-09-2012 – the MedC was the instance for conducting an employment medical examination under the EPO's ServRegs, see extract (there was a para. with confidential information re. a colleague). https://t.co/TbTQdpK5zl pic.twitter.com/7MWovpQCiA
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 21, 2020
Despite repetion of this request (in October and November 2012) the EPO did not allow me a Medical Committee in 2012, though I was entitled to it under (then) Article 90(2) Service Regulations. https://t.co/GbDTNIo8Qa
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 21, 2020
Instead the EPO chose to escalate my long-lasting conflict: from December 2012 I was threatened with unspecified disciplinary measures for my report of the new mobbing incidents by my former director and finally reprimanded on 4-3-2013 by Ms. Bergot who had been promoted to PD4.3 https://t.co/eLwSz0D3Ty pic.twitter.com/Th6PWLG0wU
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 21, 2020
Only 1 month later the EPO unfoundedly threatened me with an investigation under the #EPO's Circular 342, see below. #escalation https://t.co/RIdMmBVjzY
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 21, 2020
I had opposed this circular as a staff committee member and CSC nominee and had eventually resigned from the working group on the EPO's new policy for "Dignity of staff", see as attached (Ms. Bergot was then still an A3 employee personally known to me from this working group). https://t.co/zvm5kmGQR5 pic.twitter.com/2Aulj8Tu5g
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 21, 2020
Due to the additional procedural workload from the unfounded reprimand and the EPO's intention of the investigation under Circ. 342 (with me in an unspecified role) my chronic illness further aggravated, see as attached. pic.twitter.com/tPQnhmsfwN
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 22, 2020
Due to the long-lasting stress (exclusion from alternative expert tasks/mobbing, reprimand, threat of investigation under Circ.342) my (known) problem of heartburns and stomach acid also occurred again – so severely that my throat was affected and I became hoarse, see attached. pic.twitter.com/wz0AvBfvzW
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 22, 2020
Due to my hoarseness I could not use my dictation software which I used for my work since 2010, whereever I could, to reduce PC work (as far as it was available…there was very limited technical support). https://t.co/W787JeSQuD
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 22, 2020
Later it was found that my gastritis had become chronic already, see attached. https://t.co/5Dls45aEli pic.twitter.com/2SSpBboKpz
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 22, 2020
By end of May 2013 my overall situation had become desperate, due to the aggravation of my diseases and the pending threat of the investigation under the EPO's Circular 342 (though unlawful for various reasons), with me in an unclear role, see here below. https://t.co/zvm5kmGQR5
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 22, 2020
As the EPO had not granted me a medical committee either until then (following my request of 13-09-2012 and others) and due to the permanent harm to my health and the aggravation of my diseases,I felt absolutely unable to cope with the additional investigation under Circular 342. https://t.co/4qUkvumrHx
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 22, 2020
Thus I did not see any other chance to withdraw from the investigation under Circ. 342 than by offering retirement, under compelling pressure. https://t.co/HBEzRb9eyM pic.twitter.com/qHTB2k27GB
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 22, 2020
Following my "offer" of retirement, the EPO did not involve me in any investigation under Circular 342 and allegedly granted me a medical committee in July 2013, with a delay of more than 10 months (request of 13-9-2013), see attached. pic.twitter.com/kO3PLfd7fO
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 22, 2020
Until then (July 2013) the EPO had not confirmed the receipt of my "offer" of retirement under compelling pressure, to the best of my knowledge – at least I did not receive any notification. https://t.co/3tYxdiJlvJ
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 22, 2020
This means that I was fully entitled to withdraw my "offer" of retirement under compelling pressure, under the ILO Admin. Tribunal's Judgment no. 856, under 3. – which I did on 25-07-2013, see attached. https://t.co/GTEZjqtudo pic.twitter.com/J2PYcPdlo4
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 22, 2020
Yet the EPO nevertheless held me to my allegedly "voluntary" offer of retirement, though withdrawn, see below – this is the (main) object of my case AT 5-4384 before the ILO Admin. Tribunal. https://t.co/cVo7R5gRws
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 22, 2020
The EPO also deprived me of a complete examination by a medical committee, because the examination process could (allegedly) not be completed before the date of my alleged "voluntary" retirement – this is the (main) object of my case AT 5-4532 before the ILO Admin. Tribunal. https://t.co/4EAghswe45
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 22, 2020
With the EPO's reply to my writ in national accelerated proceedings in 2014, the EPO produced a letter of allegedly 11 June 2013 by which it allegedly accepted my so-called "offer" of retirement.
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 23, 2020
Yet the EPO did not provide any postal receipt of this letter by me, or any proof of refusal of receipt of this letter by me. https://t.co/4i5enZmxdR
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 23, 2020
In reply to my complaint in re AT 5-4384 the EPO produced a 2nd letter of allegedly 24 June 2013, this letter allegedly being sent to my home address andforwarding the first letter, with a request to me to return a signed copy of it to "my HR interlocutor".
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 23, 2020
Yet, again, the EPO did not provide any postal receipt of this letter by me, or any proof of refusal of receipt of this letter by me. https://t.co/m3gBanjkx5
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 23, 2020
Both letters, of high legal relevance (as the EPO must have been aware), would normally have been sent by registered mail by an international organisation.
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 23, 2020
There were several other hints that the letters were not genuine, for instance: another person than the one called by name in the 2nd letter was my HR interlocutor, as I could prove. https://t.co/VLYN1gnnxU
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 23, 2020
The EPO would normally have checked and corrected this in an official letter – unless such letter would have been written much later than June 2013, when the entry of my HR interlocutor had already been deleted from its internal databases (due to my alleged "retirement"). https://t.co/Vjgo6QpVJe
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 23, 2020
In any case I was not aware of these letters of allegedly June 2013, when I withdrew my so-called "offer" of retirement on 25-7-2013 (as attached), after the EPO had belatedly allowed me a Medical Committee on 17-7-2013 (as attached). https://t.co/omEChzIakz pic.twitter.com/oErQ06u5MO
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 23, 2020
Upon my arguments against the genuineness of the letters (or better: their dates) in re AT 5-4384 the EPO produced a witness statement at a late stage, with its surrejoinder. https://t.co/Vjgo6QpVJe
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 23, 2020
Yet, the statement is vague and unclear, rather in the realm of belief than an unambiguous clarification of the facts, see attached. That is no surprise, as the witness was asked, by the management, to testify about 4(!) years after the relevant period of June 2013. https://t.co/khOvLLUAdk pic.twitter.com/iNVLsASDBj
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 23, 2020
It would be close to impossible for anybody to remember the precise month of an alleged phone call after 4 years, let alone the precise date of such phone call- the witness also worked in a different department already at the time of his statement,i.e. in Patent Administration/PA https://t.co/P1hxKk3PH6
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 23, 2020
Moreover, the witness was/is an administrative employee of the EPO, dependent on the EPO for his income… https://t.co/GdCW5b7Pbf
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 23, 2020
I myself did not speak to the witness about the relevant letters of allegedly June 2013 in a telephone conversation of allegedly 21-6-2013 (mentioned in the 2nd letter), as I was not aware of the letters then. https://t.co/FispcqKorf
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 23, 2020
For all the reasons given here below, especially in view of the vagueness of the witness statement and the time at which it was made, I respectfully requested the ILO Admin. Tribunal to entirely disregard it as vague and not credible. https://t.co/YmfmS8OyUT
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 23, 2020
The general position in civil contract law is that the acceptance of an offer is effective only, if the acceptance was communicated to the offeror, unless the lack of communication must be attributed to the offeror.
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 23, 2020
As the EPO has not provided any unambiguous proof for its position that it would have communicated the acceptance of my "offer" to me, the Tribunal is/was respectfully requested to deem my so-called “offer” of retirement non-effective. https://t.co/1TsJppIb48
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 23, 2020
In addition, the ILO Admin.Tribunal is/was respectfully requested to deem my “offer” of retirement tainted with flaw and void, as it was the result of compelling pressure, see the Tribunal's Judgment no. 856, under 3 which I consider a precedent for my case AT 5-4384. https://t.co/XCtezIRIe8
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 23, 2020
As the EPO's decision of 19-09-2013 to hold me to my so-called "offer" of retirement was tainted with flaw in my view (see here below),
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 23, 2020
… and as my alleged "retirement" was subsequently used as a reason for the decision of 9-10-2013 to terminate the employment medical examination by the Medical Committee, I also consider the latter decision tainted with flaw. https://t.co/8VuRUgv8Ai
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 23, 2020
In a previous case of termination of employment following a long-term precarious employment situation of that complainant, the ILO Admin. Tribunal refrained from remanding the case to the respective organisation and instead treated the case in substance – …
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 23, 2020
…despite the fact that the organisation’s internal appeals route had not been followed at all, see the ILO Tribunal's Judgment no. 3090, under 4. https://t.co/WSCbrJ4pmE
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 23, 2020
In that case the ILO Admin.Tribunal ruled: "If a decision [.] to terminate his or her employment is challenged on the grounds that it affects the rights of the person concerned which the Tribunal is competent to safeguard,…" https://t.co/pr1p7Lx2yi
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 23, 2020
"…, the Tribunal must rule on the lawfulness of the disputed decision”, see the ILO Admin. Tribunal's Judgment no. 3090, under 4., see database Triblex https://t.co/cZRlBz3rlB https://t.co/O6meA5K7Vs
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 23, 2020
In view of the ILO Admin.Tribunal's Judgment no. 3090, under 4., this Tribunal should also treat my cases AT 5-4384 and 5-4532 in substance(!), given their serious nature (see here below). https://t.co/85KvdnEk9h
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 24, 2020
There were also a number of other reasons why an employment medical process by a Medical Committee could not unilaterally be stopped by the EPO's management – among them that the relevant EPO Service Regulations of 2013 (then Articles 89 to 92) did not justify such interference. https://t.co/HgMRrW85v2
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 24, 2020
Another interesting detail is that the EPO's nominee for the Medical Committee in my case was absent from (at least) 13-08-2013 to 9-9-2013, see attached. https://t.co/nATOiBVfaC pic.twitter.com/pBr1Vcx1Ak
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 24, 2020
Meaning: the Medical Committee could not(!) have convened between 13-08-2013 and 9-9-2013 (and the EPO knew, of course…). https://t.co/ZycnxgJKeH
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 24, 2020
Just for the records: here are the EPO's relevant Service Regulations of 2013 on the Medical Committee. pic.twitter.com/OaMittrfBd
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 24, 2020
On 9-9-2013 the Medical Committee allowed to be with excessive delay on 17-7-2013 convened -just once! Yet, the EPO's nominee already excluded the possibility of an occupational disease, though he had not even made up his mind about my invalidity in the sense of Art.62a(2): https://t.co/aT700rCBrM pic.twitter.com/tc36MrvWly
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 24, 2020
The (hand-written) comments under 7.(1rst sentence) read: "Dr. Braal proposed invalidity to which proposal Dr. Koopman could not yet agree." – He could not "yet" agree,as he had returned from holidays that very day and not had time to study my case (and he told me so on 9-9-2013) https://t.co/00so7uDgi1
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 24, 2020
There was another "interesting" detail: The two-member Medical Committee was not allowed to appoint a 3rd member on 9-9-2013, as the term of 1 month from 13-08-2013 under Article 89(3) ServRegs had not lapsed (I had nominated on 13-08-2013, see attached and relevant ServRegs). https://t.co/aT700rCBrM
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 24, 2020
No other action of the Medical Committee followed – the EPO management just stopped its work on 9-10-2013, as already proved by the relevant substantive decision (in re AT 5-4532), see my tweet of 22 January 2020 here below, with that decision. https://t.co/F1FsGrKSQE
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 24, 2020
So: what do the facts relevant to the Medical Committee process in 2013 tell us about the bona fide character of the EPO's way of acting? https://t.co/nrW1wqqc12
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 24, 2020
The conclusions of the Medical Committee of 2013 on invalidity in the sense of Art. 62a(2), as far as clear and definite, were in line with the result of employment medical examination of 2015 under Dutch law, on my initiative (until 2015 my chronic illness remained stable). #EPO https://t.co/9TgY9GdEnO pic.twitter.com/jhqO5NCqhM
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 24, 2020
The restriction of my PC work to 2 hours daily means that I fulfilled the definition of Article 62a(2) for invalidity. This restriction had been communicated to the EPO(its Occ. Health Service) in my medical report of 2012 already, see as attached. https://t.co/sCQ1mJWqSw pic.twitter.com/JejV6skMY3
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 24, 2020
Yet I am deprived of an invalidity allowance and emoluments for occupational illness by the EPO's way of acting- and held to a reduced early retirement pension. I had not stated the date from which I intended to receive my pension payments,anywhere, at the time of my so-c "offer"
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 24, 2020
Why was I "treated" like this? I can only guess. My physical limits/chronic illness played a role certainly (see my tweets here below), as well as my commitment and integrity as a staff representative. https://t.co/1XZQHmE3N2
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 24, 2020
Maybe you tend to trust rather the employer than the employee, especially in a society in which justice, rule of law, integrity, solidarity, courage and even competence are not really valued (anymore) – yet I provided a lot of evidence for my position.
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 25, 2020
Employees can easily be victimised with impunity, if they are not supported, in particular if they do not have access to an independent judge/judicial instance for treatment of their case in substance either. #Article6ECHR
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 25, 2020
The EPO's internal appeals process cannot be considered an independent judge in my view, because: (i) The EPO's management has a majority in the internal appeals committee (see Article 111(1)(a) ServRegs as applicable to my cases,as attached) -at least a 3:2 majority, by the way. pic.twitter.com/P8673kKupG
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 25, 2020
…and because: The President of the EPO takes the final decision on an internal appeal (see Article 110(4) ServRegs) – and can disregard any reasoned opinion bythe internal appeals committee. https://t.co/XUXNg3hVTD pic.twitter.com/JprNnOsPGH
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 25, 2020
Rather upsetting how people tend to believe, without any questions or doubts, what an influential person or instance tells them, and even feel confident to pass on that rumor/mere "opinion"…no matter whether this is unfairly stigmatising to (groups of) people.
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 28, 2020
Some of you may think my cases vs the EPO concern me only, yet they will necessarily become precedents for other cases pending before the ILO Admin. Tribunal, as soon as the judgments in my cases will have been published. #Article6ECHR https://t.co/FP9evpaxn6
— Dr. Anette Koch (@AnetteKoch) January 30, 2020
In less than two weeks from now there will be further judgments and thus updates. █
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink Send this to a friend
=> Permalink | ↺ Send this to a friend
=> Techrights
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.
text/gemini;lang=en-GBThis content has been proxied by September (ba2dc).