Case Study: Wrongful termination in Europe

Wrongful termination in Europe is a legally defined concept that triggers mandatory reinstatement, back-pay awards and, in several jurisdictions, punitive damages. Unlike the at-will employment model common in North America, European labour law presumes that every dismissal requires a valid, documented cause and a procedurally correct process. Employers who skip either element face claims that can run from several months of salary to multi-year compensation packages. This article examines the legal framework across key European markets, maps the procedural steps from pre-trial notice to enforcement, identifies the most common strategic mistakes made by international businesses, and provides a practical guide to managing dismissal risk before it becomes litigation.

The analysis covers the substantive grounds for lawful termination, the procedural requirements that courts scrutinise most closely, the remedies available to employees, the litigation economics for both sides, and the strategic choices that determine whether a dispute is resolved efficiently or escalates into prolonged proceedings.

---

Wrongful termination - also called unfair dismissal or unlawful dismissal depending on the jurisdiction - is the ending of an employment contract without a legally recognised ground, without following the prescribed procedure, or both. The distinction between substantive and procedural wrongfulness is critical: a dismissal can be substantively justified but still unlawful because the employer failed to follow the correct steps.

The European Union does not have a single dismissal directive, but several instruments shape national law. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 30) guarantees protection against unjustified dismissal. The Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions (Directive 2019/1152) requires written statements of employment terms and imposes limits on probationary periods. Individual member states implement these principles through their own labour codes, and the variation between them is substantial.

In Germany, the Kündigungsschutzgesetz (Protection Against Dismissal Act, KSchG) applies to employers with more than ten full-time employees and to employees with more than six months of service. Under KSchG Section 1, a dismissal is socially unjustified - and therefore void - unless it is based on personal reasons, conduct reasons, or urgent operational requirements. German courts apply a strict proportionality test: dismissal is the last resort, and employers must demonstrate that no milder measure, such as a warning or transfer, was available.

In France, the Code du travail (Labour Code) requires a real and serious cause (cause réelle et sérieuse) for any dismissal of an indefinite-term employee. The procedure involves a mandatory pre-dismissal interview (entretien préalable), a waiting period before the dismissal letter is sent, and specific wording in the dismissal letter itself. A letter that fails to state the reasons with sufficient precision renders the dismissal without real and serious cause, regardless of whether the underlying facts were valid.

In the United Kingdom, the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) defines unfair dismissal and sets out the five potentially fair reasons: capability, conduct, redundancy, statutory restriction, and some other substantial reason. Employees must ordinarily have two years of continuous employment to bring a claim. The Employment Tribunal applies the band of reasonable responses test: the question is not whether the tribunal would have dismissed, but whether the employer';s decision fell within the range of responses a reasonable employer might have taken.

In Spain, the Estatuto de los Trabajadores (Workers'; Statute, ET) distinguishes between disciplinary dismissal, objective dismissal, and collective redundancy. A disciplinary dismissal that is declared improcedente (improper) by a court gives the employer a choice: reinstate the employee or pay a statutory severance of 33 days'; salary per year of service, capped at 24 monthly payments. If the employer fails to communicate the choice within five working days, reinstatement is presumed.

In the Netherlands, the Wet werk en zekerheid (Work and Security Act, WWZ) requires employers to obtain prior approval from either the UWV (Employee Insurance Agency) for economic dismissals or the cantonal court for personal-reason dismissals, before the contract can be terminated. Bypassing this dual-channel system renders the termination void.

---

The substantive ground for dismissal is only half the battle. In practice, the majority of wrongful termination claims succeed not because the employer lacked a reason, but because the procedure was defective. International employers, accustomed to at-will or notice-based systems, consistently underestimate how prescriptive European procedural requirements are.

In Germany, the employer must notify the works council (Betriebsrat) before serving notice, under BetrVG (Works Constitution Act) Section 102. The council has one week to object for ordinary dismissals and three days for extraordinary dismissals. Failure to consult renders the dismissal void as a matter of law, regardless of the substantive merit of the case. A common mistake is treating the consultation as a formality: courts examine whether the employer provided the council with all material information, and gaps in the briefing can invalidate the process.

In France, the entretien préalable must be convened by a letter sent at least five working days before the meeting. The dismissal letter cannot be sent earlier than two working days after the interview. The letter must state the reasons with enough specificity that the employee can understand and challenge them. French courts have consistently held that vague references to "professional inadequacy" or "loss of confidence" are insufficient. The employer bears the burden of proving the stated reasons.

In the United Kingdom, the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures sets out the steps that employment tribunals take into account when assessing fairness. Failure to follow the Code does not automatically make a dismissal unfair, but tribunals can adjust any compensation award by up to 25% where the Code was unreasonably ignored. The procedural steps include a written notice of the allegation, an investigation, a disciplinary hearing with the right to be accompanied, and the right of appeal.

In Spain, a disciplinary dismissal letter must be served in writing, stating the facts and the effective date. The employer cannot add new facts during litigation that were not stated in the letter. This rule - known as the principle of congruence between the dismissal letter and the judicial claim - is strictly enforced. Many international employers draft dismissal letters that are deliberately vague to preserve flexibility, only to find that the courts treat the vagueness as an admission that no specific cause existed.

In the Netherlands, the prior-approval requirement means that the termination process begins weeks or months before the employment actually ends. UWV proceedings for economic dismissals typically take four to eight weeks. Cantonal court proceedings for personal-reason dismissals are faster but require a substantiated petition. Employers who attempt to pressure employees into signing mutual termination agreements (vaststellingsovereenkomst) without going through the proper channel risk claims that the agreement was signed under duress.

A non-obvious risk in all jurisdictions is the interaction between the dismissal procedure and any ongoing sick leave or pregnancy. In Germany, dismissal during sick leave is not automatically prohibited, but dismissal during pregnancy is void under MuSchG (Maternity Protection Act) Section 17 unless prior approval is obtained from the competent authority. In France, dismissal during a period of sick leave caused by a workplace accident is prohibited for the duration of the incapacity. Employers who proceed without checking the employee';s protected status face claims that cannot be cured by procedural correction.

To receive a checklist of procedural requirements for wrongful termination cases in key European jurisdictions, send a request to info@vlolawfirm.com.

---

The financial exposure from a wrongful termination claim in Europe is substantially higher than many international employers anticipate. The remedies available depend on the jurisdiction, the type of wrongfulness, and whether the employee seeks reinstatement or compensation.

In Germany, the primary remedy for a socially unjustified dismissal is reinstatement. In practice, reinstatement is rarely ordered because either party can apply to the court to dissolve the employment relationship against payment of a severance award (Abfindung). The Abfindung is calculated by reference to the employee';s monthly salary and years of service, with courts typically awarding between half a month and one month of gross salary per year of service. For senior employees with long tenure, this can represent a significant sum. Legal costs in German labour court proceedings are structured differently from civil proceedings: in the first instance, each party bears its own legal fees regardless of outcome, which creates an incentive for employers to settle.

In France, the Barème Macron (Macron Scale), introduced by Ordonnance 2017-1387, caps compensation for dismissal without real and serious cause at a maximum of 20 months of gross salary for employees with 29 or more years of service, with a minimum of one month for employees with less than one year. The scale does not apply to dismissals involving a violation of a fundamental right, such as discrimination or whistleblower retaliation, where courts retain full discretion. Employees can also claim procedural damages separately, capped at one month of salary, where the procedure was defective but the substance was valid.

In the United Kingdom, the Employment Tribunal can order reinstatement, re-engagement, or compensation. The compensatory award is subject to a statutory cap, which is reviewed annually. The basic award is calculated by reference to age, weekly pay (subject to a weekly cap), and years of service. The compensatory award covers actual financial loss, including lost earnings, loss of benefits, and future loss. Injury to feelings is not recoverable for unfair dismissal, though it is recoverable for discrimination claims that are often pleaded alongside.

In Spain, the statutory severance for an improcedente dismissal - 33 days per year of service, capped at 24 monthly payments - applies only to contracts concluded after the 2012 labour reform. Contracts concluded before that date carry a higher rate of 45 days per year for the pre-reform period. This transitional calculation catches many employers by surprise, particularly when dealing with long-serving employees whose contracts predate the reform.

In the Netherlands, the transition payment (transitievergoeding) is payable in all cases of employer-initiated termination, including lawful terminations. It is calculated at one third of a monthly salary per year of service, with no cap on the number of years. In addition, if the dismissal is found to be seriously culpable (ernstig verwijtbaar), the court can award additional fair compensation (billijke vergoeding) at its discretion, which in high-profile cases has reached several years of salary.

A practical scenario illustrates the exposure. A German technology company dismisses a senior manager with 12 years of service, citing restructuring, without consulting the works council. The manager earns EUR 15,000 gross per month. The dismissal is void for failure to consult. The company must either reinstate the manager or negotiate a severance. Given the seniority and tenure, the Abfindung negotiation starts at six months of salary and can reach 12 months or more. Legal costs for both sides in a contested first-instance proceeding add further pressure to settle.

---

Wrongful termination litigation in Europe follows a structured path, and the decisions made in the first weeks after dismissal often determine the outcome. Both employers and employees benefit from understanding the full procedural map before taking any step.

In Germany, the dismissed employee must file a claim with the Arbeitsgericht (Labour Court) within three weeks of receiving the dismissal notice, under KSchG Section 4. Missing this deadline means the dismissal is deemed legally valid, regardless of its merits. This is one of the shortest limitation periods in European employment law, and it catches employees who delay seeking advice. The first hearing (Gütetermin) is typically scheduled within two to four weeks of filing and is focused on settlement. If no settlement is reached, the case proceeds to a merits hearing (Kammertermin), which may take several months.

In France, the limitation period for unfair dismissal claims is one year from the date of dismissal, under Code du travail Article L1471-1. Claims are filed with the Conseil de prud';hommes (Labour Council), a bipartite tribunal composed of elected employer and employee representatives. The conciliation stage is mandatory. If conciliation fails, the case is referred to a judgment panel. First-instance proceedings typically take 12 to 24 months in major cities, and appeals to the Cour d';appel (Court of Appeal) add further time.

In the United Kingdom, the claim must be filed with the Employment Tribunal within three months minus one day of the effective date of termination. Before filing, the claimant must notify ACAS and undergo early conciliation, which pauses the limitation period. Early conciliation lasts up to six weeks. If it fails, ACAS issues a certificate and the claimant can proceed. Employment Tribunal hearings for straightforward unfair dismissal cases are typically listed six to twelve months after the claim is filed, though complex cases take longer.

In Spain, before filing a judicial claim, the employee must attempt conciliation before the SMAC (Servicio de Mediación, Arbitraje y Conciliación). The conciliation attempt is mandatory and suspends the 20-working-day limitation period. If conciliation fails, the claim is filed with the Juzgado de lo Social (Social Court). First-instance hearings are typically scheduled within three to six months of filing, and the judgment is delivered at the hearing or within a short period thereafter.

In the Netherlands, the employee who believes a dismissal was void can apply to the cantonal court for reinstatement within two months of the termination. Alternatively, the employee can claim compensation. The two-month period is strict. Employees who miss it lose the right to challenge the dismissal on substantive grounds, though they may still claim the transition payment within three years.

A second practical scenario: a French subsidiary of a US group dismisses a sales director for alleged underperformance without conducting the entretien préalable correctly. The director files a claim with the Conseil de prud';hommes within the one-year period. At conciliation, the company offers three months of salary. The director declines. At the merits stage, the tribunal finds that the procedure was defective and the cause was not real and serious. Under the Barème Macron, with eight years of service, the director receives six months of gross salary in compensation, plus one month for procedural defects. The company also bears its own legal costs.

Electronic filing is available in several jurisdictions. UK Employment Tribunals accept claims through an online portal. French labour courts are progressively moving to electronic filing for represented parties. German labour courts use the EGVP (Elektronisches Gerichts- und Verwaltungspostfach) system for electronic document submission by lawyers. Dutch courts use the Mijn Rechtspraak portal. Employers with operations across multiple jurisdictions should ensure that their HR and legal teams are familiar with the electronic systems in each country, as paper filing deadlines and electronic filing deadlines sometimes differ.

To receive a checklist of litigation steps and deadlines for wrongful termination cases across European jurisdictions, send a request to info@vlolawfirm.com.

---

International businesses entering European markets frequently apply employment practices that work in their home jurisdiction but create serious legal exposure in Europe. The following patterns appear consistently in cross-border wrongful termination disputes.

The first and most common mistake is treating the probationary period as a risk-free window for dismissal. In Germany, the KSchG does not apply during the first six months, but other protections do: dismissal during pregnancy is still void, and dismissal that is discriminatory under the AGG (General Equal Treatment Act) is still unlawful. In France, the probationary period can be renewed only once and only if the employment contract expressly provides for it; a dismissal at the end of an improperly extended probation is treated as a dismissal of a permanent employee.

The second mistake is using mutual termination agreements without proper legal advice. A vaststellingsovereenkomst in the Netherlands, a rupture conventionnelle in France, or a settlement agreement in the UK each has specific formal requirements. In France, the rupture conventionnelle must be approved by the DREETS (Direction régionale de l';économie, de l';emploi, du travail et des solidarités) and carries a 15-working-day withdrawal period. Agreements that do not meet the formal requirements can be challenged and set aside, leaving the employer in a worse position than if no agreement had been attempted.

The third mistake is failing to document performance issues before dismissal. In Germany, a conduct-based dismissal for repeated breaches typically requires prior written warnings (Abmahnungen) that specifically identified the conduct, warned of dismissal as a consequence, and gave the employee an opportunity to improve. Courts examine whether the warnings were sufficiently specific and whether the conduct that triggered dismissal was the same as the conduct warned about. Employers who issue vague or generic warnings, or who dismiss for conduct that was never the subject of a warning, face a high risk of the dismissal being found socially unjustified.

The fourth mistake is underestimating the role of collective bodies. In Germany, the works council must be consulted before every individual dismissal, not just collective redundancies. In France, employee representative bodies (CSE - Comité Social et Économique) have consultation rights in collective redundancy procedures and, in some cases, in individual dismissals involving protected employee representatives. Dismissal of a protected representative without prior authorisation from the labour inspectorate (Inspection du travail) is void and constitutes a criminal offence.

The fifth mistake is applying a one-size-fits-all severance formula across European subsidiaries. The legal minimum severance, the tax treatment of severance, and the social security implications differ significantly between jurisdictions. A severance payment that is tax-exempt up to a certain threshold in Germany may be fully taxable in France or the Netherlands. Employers who structure severance packages without jurisdiction-specific advice often create unexpected tax liabilities for the employee, which then become a source of further dispute.

A third practical scenario: a UK-based holding company instructs its Spanish subsidiary to dismiss five employees for economic reasons. The subsidiary serves individual dismissal letters without following the collective redundancy procedure (Expediente de Regulación de Empleo, ERE) required under ET Article 51 for dismissals affecting more than a threshold number of employees within 90 days. The dismissals are declared nulos (null and void) by the Social Court, requiring reinstatement with full back-pay. The cost of the error - back-pay for the period between dismissal and reinstatement, plus legal costs - substantially exceeds the cost of following the ERE procedure correctly from the outset.

The loss caused by an incorrect dismissal strategy in Europe is rarely limited to the direct compensation award. It includes management time, reputational damage in the local labour market, disruption to the remaining workforce, and, in jurisdictions where reinstatement is ordered, the practical difficulty of reintegrating an employee who has been through adversarial litigation.

---

Dismissal is not always the most efficient solution to an employment problem, and in many European jurisdictions it is not the cheapest. Employers who understand the full range of alternatives can often resolve difficult employment situations at lower cost and with less legal risk.

Mutual termination agreements, where properly structured, offer a faster and more predictable outcome than contested dismissal. In France, the rupture conventionnelle gives the employee access to unemployment benefits, which a resignation does not, making it more attractive to employees than a simple resignation. The employer pays a minimum indemnité de rupture conventionnelle calculated by reference to the legal severance formula, but avoids the risk of a finding of dismissal without real and serious cause. The process takes a minimum of 15 working days from the signing of the agreement to approval by the DREETS.

In Germany, a Aufhebungsvertrag (termination agreement) can be concluded at any time and does not require works council consultation. However, the employee may face a temporary suspension of unemployment benefits if the agreement is concluded without a compelling reason. Employers who want to avoid this consequence sometimes structure the agreement as a dismissal with a negotiated severance, which preserves the employee';s benefit entitlement while giving the employer certainty.

In the Netherlands, the vaststellingsovereenkomst must give the employee a 14-day reflection period during which the agreement can be withdrawn without consequence. If the reflection period is not mentioned in the agreement, the period extends to three weeks. Employers who omit this clause often find the agreement challenged months later.

Performance improvement plans (PIPs) serve a dual purpose in jurisdictions that require documented performance issues before dismissal. A properly structured PIP creates the paper trail that supports a capability dismissal, while also giving the employee a genuine opportunity to improve. In the UK, employment tribunals look favourably on employers who followed a fair PIP process before dismissing for capability. In Germany, a PIP can substitute for or supplement the Abmahnung process where the performance issues are complex and ongoing.

Redundancy restructuring is often a more defensible route than individual dismissal for performance or conduct where the evidence is weak. In Spain, an objective dismissal for economic, technical, organisational, or production reasons (ET Article 52) requires a 15-day notice period and payment of 20 days of salary per year of service, capped at 12 monthly payments - significantly less than the 33-day rate for an improcedente disciplinary dismissal. However, the employer must be able to demonstrate the economic or organisational justification, and courts scrutinise the connection between the stated reason and the specific employee selected for dismissal.

The business economics of the decision matter. For a mid-level employee earning EUR 5,000 per month with five years of service, the cost of a negotiated mutual termination in France (approximately three to four months of salary plus legal fees) is typically lower than the cost of a contested dismissal that results in a Barème Macron award at the upper end of the applicable range (up to four months for five years of service) plus procedural damages plus legal costs for both sides. The calculus shifts for senior employees with long tenure, where the Barème Macron cap provides the employer with more certainty than an open-ended negotiation.

When one procedure should replace another: employers should consider switching from a disciplinary dismissal track to a mutual termination track when the documentary evidence of misconduct or underperformance is thin, when the employee has protected status that complicates the dismissal process, or when the reputational or operational cost of contested litigation outweighs the cost of a negotiated exit. Conversely, employers should resist pressure to offer inflated severance packages when the legal exposure is genuinely limited, as this sets a precedent that affects future negotiations with other employees.

To receive a checklist of strategic alternatives to dismissal and their cost implications across European jurisdictions, send a request to info@vlolawfirm.com.

---

What is the biggest practical risk for an employer facing a wrongful termination claim in Europe?

The biggest practical risk is the combination of a short limitation period for the employee and a long litigation timeline for the employer. In Germany, the employee has only three weeks to file, but if the claim is filed, the employer faces proceedings that can last six to eighteen months before a first-instance judgment. During that period, the employer may be required to continue paying salary if reinstatement is ordered as an interim measure. The financial and operational burden of carrying a disputed employment relationship through litigation is often the primary driver of settlement, regardless of the merits of the employer';s position.

How much does a wrongful termination case in Europe typically cost, and how long does it take?

Costs and timelines vary significantly by jurisdiction and case complexity. Legal fees for a contested first-instance employment case typically start from the low thousands of EUR and can reach the mid-to-high tens of thousands for complex cases involving senior employees or multiple claims. In Germany, first-instance proceedings often conclude within six to twelve months; in France, twelve to twenty-four months is common. In the UK, straightforward Employment Tribunal cases are typically resolved within nine to fifteen months of filing. These timelines do not include appeals, which add further time and cost. Employers should factor in not only legal fees but also management time, HR resource, and the cost of any interim salary obligations.

Should an employer fight a wrongful termination claim or settle early?

The answer depends on the strength of the procedural record, the size of the potential award, and the strategic context. Where the dismissal procedure was followed correctly and the substantive grounds are well-documented, fighting the claim may be appropriate, particularly if the employee';s demands exceed the realistic litigation outcome. Where the procedure was defective - for example, the works council was not consulted in Germany, or the entretien préalable was not conducted correctly in France - early settlement is usually more cost-effective than contesting a claim that the employer is likely to lose on procedural grounds alone. A common mistake is allowing pride or principle to drive the decision rather than a clear-eyed assessment of the legal exposure and the cost of each path.

---

Wrongful termination in Europe is a structured legal risk that can be managed effectively with the right preparation. The substantive grounds for dismissal, the procedural requirements, and the available remedies differ significantly between Germany, France, the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, and other European jurisdictions. Employers who understand these differences before a dismissal decision is made are in a substantially stronger position than those who seek legal advice only after a claim is filed. The cost of getting it right at the outset - through proper documentation, correct procedure, and jurisdiction-specific advice - is almost always lower than the cost of defending a contested claim.

Our law firm VLO Law Firms has experience supporting clients across European jurisdictions on employment law and wrongful termination matters. We can assist with pre-dismissal risk assessment, procedural compliance, negotiation of mutual termination agreements, and representation in employment tribunal and labour court proceedings. To receive a consultation, contact: info@vlolawfirm.com