CEE Newsletter Employment - March 2026

Austria

Not every physical limitation constitutes a disability

With its ruling OGH 8ObA34/25w (30 September 2025), the Supreme Court clarifies the concept of ‘disability’ under Section 3 of the Employment Equality Act (BEinstG) in connection with dismissals. It makes clear that not every health impairment automatically meets the legal requirements for a disability. Rather, the decisive factor is whether the impairment is actually likely to make participation in working life permanently difficult. Of particular practical relevance is the Supreme Court's clarification that the assessment of the long-term nature of an impairment is not based on the time of its onset, but on the time at which the alleged discrimination occurs.

Probationary period remains probationary period, termination possible at any time without protection against dismissal even with temporary employment

The fact that a probationary employment relationship can in principle be terminated at any time, even in the case of temporary employment, is in line with established case law and was reconfirmed by the Supreme Court in its ruling 9ObA43/25a of 23 September 2025. Restricting this termination option through special protection against dismissal would be incompatible with the purpose of the legal institution of the probationary period.

No claim for damages under the Equal Treatment Act when asserting the valid employment relationship

In the decision of Supreme Court 9ObA57/25k of 23 September 2025, it was clarified that claims for damages due to discriminatory termination (Section 12 (7) GIBG) are only possible if the employee accepts the termination of the employment relationship and does not take legal action against it. Since the plaintiff had contested the dismissal and enforced the continuation of the employment relationship, this requirement was not met. There was therefore no claim for damages.

For consultation, please contact Silva Palzer, Head of Employment/Co-Head of Corporate and M&A, Partner – Eversheds Sutherland Austria

Bulgaria

A Landmark Ruling on Legal Certainty in Employment Disputes

The good or bad faith of the employer is generally irrelevant in the event of a breach of statutory obligations under the Labor Code (unless otherwise provided by law) by the employer (Supreme Court of Cassation Decision of 11 February 2025). Employees retain all contractual and collective rights, including social benefits and also the possibility to claim lost benefits or damages for failure to comply with information or other legal obligations, regardless of the employer's intent.

Obligation of Appellate Courts to Rule on the Validity of Supplementary Agreements

Appellate courts must rule on properly and lawfully raised objections to the validity of an addendum to an employment contract. These objections are essential for assessing the legality of dismissal and reinstatement. The appellate court cannot ignore them. (Supreme Court of Cassation Decision of 2 October 2025)

For consultation, please contact Victoria Tzonkova, Head of Litigation practice, Partner – Eversheds Sutherland Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Reclassification of platform work and couriers

Relevant factors for reclassification of courier work as “dependent work are their regular and continuous acceptance of assignments, the largely formal nature of substitution rights, the fact that they appeared to customers under the brand, and their economic dependence. The importance of the decision goes far beyond delivery platforms, because it sends a strong message to the entire gig economy that Czech courts will continue to focus on the real substance of work relationships rather than contractual wording alone. (Czech Supreme Administrative Court, Case No. 22 Ads 168/2025-51)

Health and safety duties also extend to third parties

The employer’s statutory obligation to ensure occupational health and safety covers all areas in which the employer carries out activities through its employees, and which remain under the employer’s control, and it also extends to any individuals other than employees who are present there with the employer’s knowledge, including self-employed persons. In practice, this is highly important for construction, logistics, manufacturing and contractor-based operating models. (Czech Supreme Court, Case No. 21 Cdo 1325/2025)

Unequal pay and the calculation of damages

Damages suffered by an employee as a result of unequal treatment in pay are to be calculated as the difference between that employee’s wage and the wage of a comparable employee performing the same work or work of equal value; where there are several such employees and their wages differ, the highest wage is the relevant benchmark. The decision gives employees a strong and practically usable claim, while imposing a heavier burden on employers attempting to justify regional or other pay differences. (Czech Supreme Court, Case No. 21 Cdo 2000/2024)

For consultation, please contact Radek Matouš, Partner – Eversheds Sutherland Czech Republic

Hungary

Health-Related Unfitness for Work – new obligations for employers

The court repealed an amendment to the Labour Code allowing employees who are unfit for work to remain in employment without work, wages, or alternative positions, as it created a legal vacuum, denied income and social protection, and violated constitutional guarantees. Employers must pay such employees remuneration unless the employment relationship is terminated. (Hungarian Constitutional Court – case nr. 1/2025. (II. 27.) AB)

Immediate Termination of Employment

An employer cannot designate the termination of employment as immediate and at the same time postpone its effect if there were already grounds for immediate termination; postponement contradicts the purpose of the immediate termination of employment regime and is invalid. (Hungarian Supreme Court (Curia) – Immediate Termination of Employment – case nr. BH2025. 146)

For consultation, please contact Katalin Varga, Head of Employment, Partner – Eversheds Sutherland Hungary

Poland

Pre retirement protection also applies to fixed term employment contracts

The court ruled that protection against retirement under Article 39 of the Labor Code also applies to fixed-term employment contracts, including those that would expire before reaching retirement age. The prohibition on terminating the employment of an employee who has less than four years left until retirement and meets the eligibility requirements also applies in such cases. The court emphasized that there are no grounds for a restrictive interpretation of this provision and resolved the dispute in favor of the employee. (Resolution of the Supreme Court of 30 September 2025, III PZP 6/24)

Formally prohibited practise may not constitute the serious breach of duties

If an employer tolerates a practice in the workplace that is formally prohibited, an employee's conduct in accordance with this tolerated practice cannot be considered a serious breach of fundamental obligations. In specific case, the employee remained at the workplace after working hours, helped colleagues, and served customers using another employee's account; these practices were common and known to superiors. The employer immediately terminated the employment relationship for an alleged serious breach of duties. The courts found that the employer had not proven a serious breach, as the conduct was commonly tolerated, did not jeopardize the employer's interests or property, and all circumstances of the case had to be taken into account. (Supreme Court ruling of 26 February 2025, III PSK 150/24)

For consultation, please contact Ewa Łachowska-Brol, Head of Labor Law Practice, Managing Partner – Eversheds Sutherland Poland

Romania

Voluntary Reinstatement of the Employee

An employer who voluntarily complies with a first-instance court decision to reinstate an unlawfully dismissed employee must inform the employee of the reinstatement of the employment relationship and the date of the actual reinstatement. This obligation requires communication and genuine effort on the part of the employer to ensure that the employee is properly informed. (High Court of Cassation and Justice Decision No. 362 of 20 October 2025)

Prohibition to Issue a Dismissal Decision During Sick Leave

The court ruled that the prohibition on dismissing an employee during temporary incapacity for work applies exclusively to the moment when the decision on dismissal is issued. Therefore, during incapacity for work, it is not legally possible to adopt a decision on dismissal, regardless of its notification or entry into force. (High Court of Cassation and Justice Decision No. 18 of 29 September 2025)

Fixed term employment agreements without legal basis covert to permanent contracts

If a fixed-term employment contract is concluded without a legally permitted (or realistic) legal basis, only the provision on the fixed term is invalid, not the entire contract; as a result, it is converted into an indefinite employment contract based on a court decision. (Minutes of the Meeting of the Presidents of the Courts of Appeal on Labor and Social Security Disputes)

For consultation, please contact Oana Palita, Co-head of Employment, Partner – Eversheds Sutherland Romania

Slovakia

Hidden employment – contrary to good morals

If the employer purposefully terminated the employee’s employment in order to avoid obligations arising from the employment relationship and replaced the employment with a commercial contractual relationship, such conduct is considered unethical and contrary to good morals. The court assessed the purposefulness of the organisational change as contrary to good morals, which resulted in the invalidity of the termination based on an organisational change. The court characterised this conduct as a form of the so‑called “Švarc‑system”. (Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, Case No. 4CdoPr/13/2024)

Monitoring and non‑competition

Monitoring an employee’s email communication without meeting the statutory requirements may constitute unlawful obtaining of evidence by the employer — for example, if the email correspondence proving a breach of a non‑competition obligation was obtained through unauthorized monitoring. The employer must explain how the employee’s emails were obtained and must also demonstrate the legality of such monitoring. (Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, Case No. 9CdoPr/5/2025)

Work Injury

If an employee suffers a work injury while washing or changing clothes, provided these activities are justified by the nature of the work (the condition of necessity must be met), such activities will be considered as acts in direct connection with the performance of work duties—even if performed outside the employee’s standard working hours (at the beginning or end of the work shift).

If an employee is injured while performing work duties as a result of an assault by another employee or a person working for the employer, the injury constitutes a work injury. For the purposes of assessing the employer’s objective liability for a work injury, the decisive factor is that the damage occurred during the performance of work duties, not who caused the damage. (Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic of 26 February 2025, Case No. 1CdoPr/12/2024)

For consultation, please contact Jana Sapáková, Head of Employment, Partner – Eversheds Sutherland Slovakia