In the case under review, the fixed-term period under the employee’s employment contract had already expired; however, the employee sought a judicial determination that his employment relationship had been transformed into an indefinite-term employment relationship. Before the relevant declaratory proceedings had been finally concluded, the employer immediately terminated the employment relationship (due to a particularly gross breach of the employee’s duties). In the text of the immediate termination notice, the employer stated that it was doing so “as a precaution”, as it was uncertain whether the employee’s employment relationship had already ended upon expiry of the fixed term or whether it was still continuing.

The lower courts inferred from the wording “as a precaution” that the immediate termination of the employment relationship was conditional upon a court decision confirming that the employment relationship had been concluded for an indefinite period and therefore continued to exist. Under employment law, however, it generally applies that the termination of an employment relationship by a unilateral act of the employer (such as notice of termination, immediate termination of employment, etc.) may not be subject to the fulfilment of any condition.

In this case, however, the Supreme Court held that the mere use of the phrase “as a precaution” in the employer’s immediate termination notice does not constitute a condition, as it merely expresses the employer’s uncertainty as to whether the employment relationship was still in existence on the date of the immediate termination.

Supreme Court judgment of 26 May 2026, Ref. No. 21 Cdo 720/2026

Author: Helena Hailichová