European Patent Organization v. VEOB and SUEPO

The VEOB and SUEPO, two trade unions operating in the Dutch office of the European Patent Organization (EPO), filed a legal claim against the latter organization. Rejecting the plea of immunity, the Tribunal of first instance exercised its jurisdiction over the case.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that national court had jurisdiction over the claim advanced by the trade unions against EPO. The Court recognized that the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of EPO provides that, within its official activities, EPO enjoys immunity from jurisdiction. However, the Court of Appeal observed trade unions have no access to the EPO internal mechanism of employment dispute resolution and to the jurisdiction of the International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal (ILOAT). According to the Court, in light of this circumstance, the protection afforded to the human rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is
“manifestly deficient“.

EPO appealed the latter judgment before the Supreme Court, which overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court underlined that, according to well established jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the right of access to justice is not absolute, and the granting of jurisdictional immunity to international organizations is a legitimate restriction of such right. As highlighted by the Supreme Court, jurisdictional immunity of international organization is a necessary tool to protect their independent functions. The Supreme Court also recognized that such a restriction is considered legitimate only when it does not entail a total curtailment of the right to legal protection. Alternative reasonable remedies must exist. In this regard, the Supreme Court reminded that the proportionality test “cannot be applied in such a way as to compel an international organization to submit itself to national litigation in relation to employment conditions prescribed under national labour law“.

Contrary to the Court of Appeal’s findings, the Supreme Court held that, in the case in question, the EPO’s internal justice system effectively safeguarded the collective interests of employees. While VEBO and SUEPO cannot themselves institute a judicial process with ILOAT or avail themselves of any other judicial process provided for by EPO, individual staff members can challenge the measures taken by EPO that affect them by relying on the EPO internal procedure and subsequently by means of a judicial process at ILOAT.