In its judgment of 12 June 2026, Case No. 21 Cdo 596/2025, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute concerning wage compensation following a final and binding determination that a notice of termination of employment was invalid. The employer argued, in particular, that the employee had notified the employer late that he insisted on further employment, requested a reduction in wage compensation, and challenged the method used to determine the employee’s probable earnings.
The Supreme Court confirmed its previous case law, according to which the requirement to notify the employer “without undue delay” that the employee insists on further employment is merely an organisational time limit; moreover, the legislation has since been amended.
When deciding on a potential reduction of wage compensation, the relevant circumstances are primarily those relating to the employee’s further employment opportunities after the expiry of six months, rather than other circumstances relied on by the employer. At the same time, however, the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of the lower courts in the part concerning the calculation of probable earnings, as those earnings had not been determined in accordance with the Labour Code.
The judgment clearly summarises and confirms the settled case law concerning Section 69 of the Labour Code and also recalls that probable earnings cannot be determined mechanically on the basis of average earnings from a previous period.
HR LU 06/26 download here.
The information contained in this bulletin is presented to the best of our knowledge and belief at the time of going to press. However, specific information related to the topics covered in this bulletin should be consulted before any decision is made. The information contained in this bulle-tin should not be construed as an exhaustive description of the relevant issues and any possible consequences, and should not be fully relied on in any decision-making processes or treated as a substitute for specific legal ad-vice, which would be relevant to particular circumstances. Neither Weinhold Legal, s.r.o. advokátní kancelář nor any individual lawyer listed as an author of the information accepts any responsibility for any detriment which may arise from reliance on information published here. Fur-thermore, it should be noted that there may be various legal opinions on some of the issues raised in this bulletin due to the ambiguity of the relevant provisions and an interpre-tation other than the one we give us may prevail in the future.
Automatic text and data mining, as well as reproduction or extraction of their content for the purposes of automated analysis from this information material, is prohibited pursuant to Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 and Section 39c of Act No. 121/2000 Coll., the Copyright Act, without the prior express written consent of Weinhold Legal, s.r.o., law firm, unless, in any such use, the authorship of Weinhold Legal, s.r.o., law firm is expressly acknowledged together with a reference to the location of such text and data.
© 2025 Weinhold Legal
All rights reserved.
