B. et al v. European Patent Organization

Three employees in the Berlin Office of the European Patent Organization filed a constitutional complaint before the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany against a decision of the President of the European Patent Office, alleging violations of their fundamental rights protected by the German Basic Law.

The Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint, finding that it has no competence to review the legality of EPO’s internal decision. The Constitutional Court held that the facts complained of by the applicants did not rise issue of constitutional law, nor is the complaint directed against an act of a public authority within the meaning of the Basic Law and the Federal Constitutional Court Act. It also highlighted that EPO is an international organization to which Germany is a member, and it enjoys jurisdictional immunity from disputes arising from its official activities under the EPO Convention and the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of EPO.

As stressed by the Court, EPO has the autonomy to organize its internal structure. In particular, “this includes the ability to make rules to govern its legal relationships with its employees autonomously and independently of the national laws of Contracting States including the country where it has its seat”. By assessing the legality of an internal act of EPO, the Constitutional Court would unduly interfere with EPO’s internal affairs. In this regard, the Court reminded that it can exercise its jurisdiction over a claim advanced against an international organization upon the condition that such organization had failed to establish appropriate means of redress.

As previously assessed in other precedent cases, the Constitutional Court affirmed that system of justice provided by EPO essentially respects the standards of justice and fair trial enshrined in the Basic Law. The EPO Service Regulation set up a mechanism of employment disputes settlement, providing that employees and former employees might file a complaint to the International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal (ILOAT).

According to Constitutional Court, the jurisdiction of ILOAT provided the applicants with an appropriate means of redress. Specifically, “ILOAT’s status and its procedural rules satisfy both the international minimum standards for basic procedural justice as well as the minimum requirements of the rule of law contained in the Basic Law”. In the case in question, before bringing the matter before the Constitutional Court, the applicants had challenged the EPO’s internal decision before the ILOAT, which had, however, rejected their application. The EPO’s employees therefore had access to an effective judicial remedy.