Czech Republic: Reassessment of Strict Judicial Review of Immediate Termination of Employment

Author: Klára Šléglová

 

Czech courts traditionally adopt a strict approach toward unilateral terminations of employment by employers, with the aim of preventing dismissals lacking legitimate grounds and upholding the enhanced protection of employees enshrined in the Czech Labour Code. However, in its recent judgement issued on 3 September 2025, File No.: II. ÚS 2881/24, the Czech Constitutional Court set boundaries to the strict interpretation of employers´ obligations regarding immediate termination of employment (summary dismissal).

 

Summary of the Case

Two high-school teachers were dismissed due to not showing up to class and allegedly consuming alcohol in the staff room. They later refused to undergo an alcohol test and left the school grounds without the employer’s approval during their working hours. The school considered the breach of duties severe enough to justify immediate termination – a measure reserved for particularly serious situations. The teachers then sued the high school and all three tiers of general courts ruled in their favour. The courts found the alleged consumption of alcohol had not been proven, except for one teacher who admitted guilt. Moreover, the refusal to undergo an alcohol test and the unapproved departure did not constitute particularly gross breach of duties, as the teachers later submitted medical notes confirming their work incapacity. In the courts´ view, the incident was an excusable and isolated lapse that occurred away from the students. The issue of students being left unsupervised was disregarded, as it had not been cited in the school’s justification for immediate termination.

 

The Judgement and Legal Opinions of the Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court quashed the judgements of general courts, ruling in favour of the school´s constitutional complaint. Regarding the courts´ evaluation of evidence, it stated that when the courts could not directly prove the alcohol consumption of one of the teachers due his refusal to take an alcohol test, they should have thoroughly taken into account the other evidence which was sufficient to reach a reasonable conlusion. Moreover, the Constitutional Court emphasized that teachers are expected to demonstrate a higher level of moral integrity due to their societal position.

For labour law, the most relevant part of the judgement concerned the employers´ obligations when issuing immediate termination. The Constitutional Court reiterated the Supreme Court´s opinion that employers must always clearly and specifically state the reasons for immediate termination so there is no room for doubts and belated modification. However, it argued the courts erred in disregarding the fact that the teachers hhad left students unsupervised merely because the school had not listed it as a reason for immediate termination. The Court held that employers are not obliged to provide exhaustive detail regarding the reasons for termination, nor to identify every factor that should be considered when evaluating the intensity of breach of duties. While it remains advisable for employers to consider the adequacy of the chosen way of terminating employment beforehand, they do not have to record this deliberation in writing.

Key Action Points for Human Resources and In-House Counsel

• The Czech Constitutional Court refined limits of the strict judicial approach to employers´ obligations when issuing immediate termination.
• Employers must clearly state reasons for immediate termination but are not required to provide exhaustive explanations.
• Courts must consider all available evidence, even when direct one is lacking.