Source: http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/06/03/preparatory-committee-unified-patent-court-starts-new-round-of-recruitment-of-judges/
Timestamp: 2019-10-21 20:59:49
Document Index: 561593291

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art 10', 'Art 10', 'Art 1', 'Art 3', 'Art 4', 'Art 8', 'Art 8', 'Art 15', 'Art 10', 'Art 10']

“Although there have been rumours and educated guesses that the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) is likely to decide about the German complaint later this year,…” is a stance one hears regularly from the proponents of the UPC.
The “rumours and educated guesses” have even been such that a decision was expected before the end of May. We are in June and nothing happened….
In real life, one would call this wishful thinking, no more no less. Please save us from such “rumours and educated guesses”.
When looking at Art 10 of the Statute, I would however not be inclined to apply for a job as judge at the UPC.
The moment seems right for a defibrillation indeed.
Attentive Observer offers a reason to think twice before applying for a job as a judge in this supra-national organisation. What is “Art 10 of the Statute” though? Can he help me there?
Meanwhile, I can think of another reason.
I presume that the lobbyists for the UPC are much the same as those who lobby the members of the EPO’s Administrative Council, that Council which finds itself obliged to rubber stamp the EPO President’s deplorable trampling over the employment rights of those who work at the EPO, not least the Judges of the EPO Boards of Appeal. Which self-respecting judge, contemplating putting in for a job at the UPC, but who cherishes and pays homage to the internationally established Rule of Law, would willingly allow his or her basic human rights to be similarly trashed?
Truly, the supervision of any supra-national organisation is an increasing problem, in this aggressive, might trumps right, price of everything/value of nothing, age in which we live.
When using the following link, you will find the UPCA and its two annexes, whereby Annex I defines the statute of the Court. I have summarised the most important points.
In Art 1-Statute, it is defined that “This Statute contains institutional and financial arrangements for the Unified Patent Court as established under Article 1 of the UPCA. So it is necessarily part of the UPCA.
Art 3-Statute, defines the procedure of appointment of judges, whereby “Judges shall be appointed pursuant to the procedure set out in Article 16 of the UPCA.
Art 4-Statute, defines the Judges’ term of office which is 6 years, renewable.
Art 8-Statute, defines the immunity of judges, whereby according to Art 8(2), Statute, the Praesidium may waive the immunity.
Last but not least, Art 15(1)-Statute, defines the composition of the Praesidium: “The Praesidium shall be composed of the President of the Court of Appeal, who shall act as chairperson, the President of the Court of First Instance, two judges of the Court of Appeal elected from among their number, three judges of the Court of First Instance who are full-time judges of the Court elected from among their number, and the Registrar as a non-voting member.”
In view of the powers given to the Praesidium and of the absence of means of redress for a judge removed from its function, I would have hesitations to apply to such a post.
i hope I could shed some light into a situation which is not so easy to grasp quickly.
AO is presumably referring to Art 10 of the “statute of the unified patent court” which contains institutional and financial arrangements and is an Annex to the UPCA.
Art 10 of the statute sets out that a judge can be removed from office by the “Presidium”.
The Presidium “shall be composed of the President of the Court of Appeal, who shall act as
chairperson, the President of the Court of First Instance, two judges of the Court of Appeal elected
from among their number, three judges of the Court of First Instance who are full-time judges of the
Court elected from among their number, and the Registrar as a non-voting member. ”
The judges are initially appointed by the Admin council on recommendations of the Advisory council but the Presidents are then elected by the judges not the councils.