tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5407866443937198832..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: UK House of Commons committee progresses final stages of UPC ratificationVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-32318446521254197302017-12-06T13:21:29.592+00:002017-12-06T13:21:29.592+00:00To the question of whether a judge can be independ...<i>To the question of whether a judge can be independent if there is no reliable judicial review available to him against adverse decisions of his appointing authority, the German Constitutional Court will hopefully give a response.</i><br /><br />Only if the question has been asked ...FAQnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-34778440665599849322017-12-05T14:19:04.383+00:002017-12-05T14:19:04.383+00:00In all likelihood it will be the administrative tr...In all likelihood it will be the administrative tribunal of the international labour organisation -ILOAT- in Geneva. <br /><br />It is a well known fact that this "court" is by no means up to the expectations, as it only looks whether the letter of the law and the procedure have been respected. There should be internal mechanisms in the UPC administrative system to look at complaints from staff internally before a member of staff can complain at the ILOAT. The ILOAT does not have the capacity to deal with direct complaints <br /><br />But before this is possible, staff regulations for the employees of the UPC will have to be decided. Nothing has apparently be published on this topic. <br /><br />As national judges could be seconded to the UPC, they could de facto remain in their national statute. As it is intended that at least at the beginning the work at the UPC is only part-time, such a situation would not be uncommon. What then about their independence?<br /><br />The more one looks into the UPC, the more one discovers problems. May be this was a reason to push it through as quickly as possible, so that the problems could be hidden. Once discovered, it would be too late to go back. In one of the official languages of the EPO it is called "fait accompli". But no doubt it is understandable in lots of languages. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-57760742951305784322017-12-05T13:09:22.260+00:002017-12-05T13:09:22.260+00:00To the question of whether a judge can be independ...To the question of whether a judge can be independent if there is no reliable judicial review available to him against adverse decisions of his appointing authority, the German Constitutional Court will hopefully give a response.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-4481268983053757922017-12-05T11:48:10.044+00:002017-12-05T11:48:10.044+00:00@You Pea :
"So can anyone solve the riddle: ...@You Pea :<br /><br />"So can anyone solve the riddle: To what court or tribunal will UPC staff be able to apply for judicial review in the case of employment disputes ? "<br /><br />That bastion of defence of employee's rights, the ILOAT ? The very same one that is snowed under with appeals filed by EPO employees ? Oh dear...UnPreparedContritionnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-72496956376146140142017-12-04T16:39:55.921+00:002017-12-04T16:39:55.921+00:00@ Let's face reality
There is also an interes...@ Let's face reality<br /><br /><i>There is also an interesting point raised in JJ's plea before the committee ... </i><br /><br />And this in my opinion leads on to the even more interesting question as to what form of employment law will apply to the staff of the UPC.<br /><br />The UPC will have its own staff regulations but has it been clarified what court or tribunal then has competence in the case of disputes concerning the application of these regulations.<br /><br />Please don't say that EU law applies here and that the EU Court has jurisdiction.<br />The UPC like the EPO is not an EU institution.<br />If it would be an EU institution then surely it wouldn't need to have its own Protocol on Privileges and Immunities because the EU PPI would apply.<br /><br />So can anyone solve the riddle: To what court or tribunal will UPC staff be able to apply for judicial review in the case of employment disputes ? <br /><br />You Pea Seanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-24865361518938642922017-12-03T16:59:10.553+00:002017-12-03T16:59:10.553+00:00To sum it up: post Brexit stay of the UK in the UP...To sum it up: post Brexit stay of the UK in the UPC is a fata morgona, only held alive by those having a (big financial) finger in the pie.<br /><br />I like the barely blip!<br /><br />All the corresponding waffling coming from this side should stop. It is getting tiring. <br /><br /><br />There is also an interesting point raised in JJ's plea before the committee:<br /><br />"The judges and staff of the court will be exempt from national taxation on their salaries and from national insurance once the court applies its own equivalent tax and puts in place its own social security and health system, but neither exemption will apply to court staff who are British nationals or permanent UK residents."<br /><br />One of the reasons for not directly taxing salaries of staff of international organisations is to avoid the situation of a different salary for staff of different nationalities and/or working in different places of employment. This applies whether the staff is a citizen of the country in which he works or not. <br /><br />JJ is thus implying that UK nationals and permanent UK residents will see their UPC salary taxed by HMG. Has anybody realised what an incongruity that is? It is another proof, if one needed one, that HMG is not prepared at all. Let's face realitynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-85215542635361799322017-12-01T22:16:26.387+00:002017-12-01T22:16:26.387+00:00So the UK continues with the process towards ratif...So the UK continues with the process towards ratification and is criticised here for playing politics with the EU, whereas Germany is rightfully waiting for the UK's mess to be cleaned up. sad.<br /><br />Fact is, continued participation does require renegotiation.<br />Fact is, the UPC is not a bargaining chip, because its value is insignificant.<br />Fact is, facts won't stop anti-UK criticism from both within and without the UK at every turn.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-57739042946455017882017-12-01T11:07:51.722+00:002017-12-01T11:07:51.722+00:00I'm astounded that people still believe that a...I'm astounded that people still believe that a member of the Government giving vague and non-committal answers to questions put to them indicates that the Government have some sort of plan as to the future of the relevant policy. Surely, this just indicates that the Government have no plans in relation to the relevant policy.<br /><br />It has become abundantly clear over the last few weeks that the Government have little or no plan for any major policy area. See for example, the 58 reports on the economic impact of Brexit that don't actually exist or the non-existent plans for the Irish border. With regards to the UPC, JJ is not committing to the UK participating in the UPC as the the Government simply do not know whether we are able to after Brexit or whether we will be allowed to. There simply isn't a Government plan as to what will happen post-Brexit with the UPC. JJ's answers aren't a negotiating tactic as the Government doesn't have any negotiating tactics, particularly in relation to something as of little relative importance as the UPC. <br /><br />Whilst people reading this blog are heavily interested and invested in the UPC it is a mistake to think the Government are equally as interested. The UPC is barely a blip on the Government's radar and almost certainly isn't something that would be considered a bargaining chip. Non-committal answers simply show a lack of knowledge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-89489013154259285422017-12-01T06:43:11.924+00:002017-12-01T06:43:11.924+00:00When JJ is talking about negotiations re post Brex...When JJ is talking about negotiations re post Brexit stay of the UK in the UPC, it clearly means that all those claiming that the stay is easy to obtain (K. Mooney, W. Pors and consorts) have been ridden by an illness called "wishful thinking". <br /><br />It is understandable that they see big profits flowing away, so that self illusion is an attempt to overcome the loss. The more so since they have invested a lot of time and efforts in devising the RoP of the UPC.<br /><br />It would be better if they would come back to reality rather than trying to pull wool over our eyes!Stop taking us for a ridenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-51766718659818225192017-11-30T16:08:09.675+00:002017-11-30T16:08:09.675+00:00Wearily, I suppose this JJ wordplay is all of a pi...Wearily, I suppose this JJ wordplay is all of a piece with the notion that negotiating with EU 27 is all about having in your hand more "cards" to play that the Team on the other side of the negotiating table. <br /><br />Presumably, the view amongst HMG's ministers is that one of Macron/Merkel's highest priorities is to get the UPC up and running, and further, that EU27 ready to pay a high price for UK ratification.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-14762280712974872642017-11-30T15:51:32.237+00:002017-11-30T15:51:32.237+00:00Reading Hansard, it seems that that Jo Johnson use...Reading Hansard, it seems that that Jo Johnson used certain phrases repeatedly. This is unlikely to be an accident. More likely, those phrases were drummed into him beforehand so that he could stay "on message".<br /><br />One of JJ's most repeated phrases was that the government wanted to be "<b>in a position to</b> ratify the agreement". If this repetition is indeed the result of JJ effectively reading from a pre-agreed script, then it is not hard to reach the conclusion that the UK may not rush to deposit its instrument of ratification.<br /><br />In connection with the UK's future participation in the UPC, other phrases often repeated (in a number of variations) could well be significant too. These include "we will need to negotiate" and "It would not be appropriate for me to set out unilaterally what the UK’s position will be in advance of those negotiations".<br /><br />So, to conclude: whilst reaffirming that it thinks that the UPC is a good idea, the UK government has promised neither swift ratification nor a guarantee of the UK's continued participation in the UPC... as everything seems to depend upon the outcome of negotiations with the EU.<br /><br />As we all know, the UK has stated its intention to leave both the single market and the customs union, and to ditch all Treaties that underpin EU law, including TEU, TFEU and EURATOM. How on earth the UK can do this and continue participating in the UPC is anyone's guess. Indeed, one could be forgiven for gaining the impression that the government is desperately trying to keep all plates spinning for the time being whilst knowing full well that it will be impossible to keep this up indefinitely.<br /><br />This all means that, instead of asking when the UK will ratify, we ought instead to be asking which of the plates currently spinning will the government allow to come crashing down: the UK's position on the single market (and the role of the CJEU) or the UK's position on post-Brexit participation in the UPC?<br /><br />Whilst I do not know the answer to that question, I most certainly would not like to put money on the UK's continued participation in the UPC. And this perhaps raises the most pertinent question of all: even if it were able to ratify the UPC in 2018, do we really believe that the German government will do so without knowing whether chaos will reign less than a year later as a result of the UK's enforced departure from the system?Proof of the puddinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14209291532431506713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-19150238874939419142017-11-30T12:10:15.143+00:002017-11-30T12:10:15.143+00:00Watching the committee debate live on-line yesterd...Watching the committee debate live on-line yesterday, I did wonder who that <i>almost but not quite</i> Boris Johnson figure was. Today I learned (as they say elsewhere on-line) that he has a brother.Broken toothbrushnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-27470189746680120372017-11-30T11:51:54.751+00:002017-11-30T11:51:54.751+00:00The transcript in Hansard is now online:
https://...The transcript in Hansard is now online:<br /><br />https://tinyurl.com/ybmeaz6m<br /><br />Alex Robinsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-43683253578891234122017-11-30T11:33:20.401+00:002017-11-30T11:33:20.401+00:00The GuestKat's meticulous verbal analysis is e...The GuestKat's meticulous verbal analysis is entirely justified in these circumstances - I am quite sure that Jo Johnson's stopping short of saying that the UK will actually ratify the Agreement was quite deliberate (and/or an implicit acknowledgment that if we do we may nevertheless have to leave again as soon as Brexit takes effect).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com