Enlarged Board publishes decision: EPO President violated judicial independence
Merpel has now got her paws on several copies of the Enlarged Board of Appeal's decision in the latest round of the "House Ban" disciplinary action (reported here). If you like your IP decisions to be explosive, then she can't recommend it highly enough. The case reference is
Readers can access the document here. It arrived in several copies today thanks to a number of correspondents who would no doubt prefer not to be identified, for reasons of modesty and career security. The decision is marked for "Publication in OJ", but the Board notes with admirable deadpan that its orders in the two earlier sets of proceedings, to publish those earlier decisions "have not yet been executed by the competent authorities of the Office."
It was already known that this third set of proceedings collapsed due to what was seen as an improper intervention by Mr Battistelli, the EPO President, regarding a decision by the EBA to hold oral proceedings in public, and that this was aggravated by the fact that the Administrative Council refused to distance itself from the actions of Mr Battistelli. Bear in mind, in what follows, that Mr Battistelli was not party to these proceedings, which were instigated by the Administrative Council (“Petitioner”) and the only other party was the impugned Board Member (“Respondent”).
Time prevents Merpel from doing full justice to this decision, but she believes that it speaks for itself pretty well in the most revealing passage, entitled:
"THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE ENLARGED BOARD AND THE OFFICE PRESIDENT’S LETTER OF 10 JUNE 2016
36. In his letter of 10 June 2016 (see quotations in point XXVI. above), the Office President expressed his view that the Enlarged Board’s decision to hold public oral proceedings was unlawful. He further elaborated that the Enlarged Board does not have the competence to determine the facts in these proceedings. Finally, he indicated that he would not hesitate to take any appropriate steps available to him to ensure the orderly running of the Office and the safety of its employees in respect of the present case.
37. The making of an unlawful decision is clearly misconduct. Hence the general, abstract threat to the independence of the Enlarged Board resulting from the amendment of Article 95(3) ServRegs (see para 8 to 13 above) has now crystallised as a result of the Office President’s procedurally irregular intervention in these proceedings.
38. As the present case has shown, the Office President assumes the power to investigate and to suspend members of the Boards of Appeal and bar them from the Office.
39. In addition, he may also propose any other disciplinary measures to the AC, pursuant to Article 10(2) (h)EPC.
40. Thus, in the presence of these facts, ascertainable by any objective observer, all present members of the Enlarged Board find themselves threatened with disciplinary measures if they continue with these proceedings in the presence of the public, and seek to determine the facts of this case. This undermines the fundamental principle of judicial independence as set out in Article 23(3) EPC. Thus the conditions of Article 23(3) EPC are not fulfilled, unless the AC as appointing and disciplinary authority for all members of the Enlarged Board, including its external members, distances itself from this position of the Office President.
41. After having been given time during the in camera conference held on 14 June 2016 to reflect upon this situation, the Chairman of the AC made the following remarks in writing concerning the Office President’s letter and enclosure of 10 June 2016:
"... Such a communication does not emanate from a party to the proceedings. In view of the fact that the Administrative Council is only represented in the proceedings pursuant to Article 12a(2) of the rules of procedure of the EBA, it cannot take position on a communication from the Executive Head of the Office.
In this respect, and as per Article 23 (3) EPC, the EBA members are not bound by any instruction but must abide by the provisions of the EPC. This cannot be prejudicial to them, bearing in mind that the Council is the sole competent disciplinary authority for them ...”
42. The Petitioner in this case is the AC. The AC is the appointing and disciplinary authority for the Office President (the highest ranking appointee of the AC) , as well as for the members of the Enlarged Board, (the highest judicial authority of the EPO) . The Petitioner thus has an institutional obligation to clarify whether it endorses or not the Office President’s position as set out in his letter of 10 June 2016 and referred to above.
43. For the Enlarged Board to be able to continue with these proceedings the position of the Petitioner would have to be that it did not agree with the Office President and acknowledged that, from an institutional point of view, the pressure exercised by the Office President in the present case was incompatible with the judicial independence of the Enlarged Board guaranteed by the EPC. As the Petitioner did not clearly distance itself from the Office President’s position, there is the threat of disciplinary measures against the members of the Enlarged Board. It is then the Enlarged Board’s judicial independence in deciding on this case which is fundamentally denied.
44. As can be derived from the statement of the Chairman of the AC, there was no clear and unequivocal declaration that the AC distanced itself from (or did not share) the Office President’s position. In such a situation, the Enlarged Board cannot legally continue with these proceedings. As a consequence it cannot make a proposal to the Petitioner to remove the Respondent from office.
45. Thus to summarise, the Enlarged Board was reduced to the following alternatives:
— either, to take an “unlawful decision”;
— or, to take a “lawful decision” according to the demands of the Office President, i.e. setting aside its decision on the public oral proceedings and taking as granted the facts established in the IU Report and/or the DC’s opinion.
46. In either case, the respective decision would be inherently vitiated because it would have been made under pressure from the executive and without the serenity and independence needed for a fair trial.
47. The intervention of the Office President, and this intervention alone, prevented the Enlarged Board from continuing the proceedings as had been planned, (see above points XVI to XXI) , from examining the case on its substantive merits as put forward by the Petitioner, and from establishing whether serious grounds for the removal from office of the Respondent existed in accordance with Article 23(1) EPC.