<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!-- generator="Joomla! - Open Source Content Management" -->
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"  xml:lang="en-gb">
	<title type="text">on Termination</title>
	<subtitle type="text">Expat's Concise Guide to Overcome Officialdom in Germany and so smoothly integrate into Germany to stay on the right side of the law</subtitle>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.lg2g.info"/>
	<id>https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination</id>
	<updated>2025-02-07T12:08:29+01:00</updated>
	<generator uri="http://joomla.org" version="2.5">Joomla! - Open Source Content Management</generator>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination?format=feed&amp;type=atom"/>
	<entry>
		<title>Diplomatic Immunity for Consulates as Employer</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1578-diplomatic-immunity-for-consulates-as-employer"/>
		<published>2012-12-16T06:48:10+01:00</published>
		<updated>2012-12-16T06:48:10+01:00</updated>
		<id>https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1578-diplomatic-immunity-for-consulates-as-employer</id>
		<author>
			<name>AvE</name>
			<email>hi@lg2g.info</email>
		</author>
		<summary type="html">&lt;div class=&quot;feed-description&quot;&gt;&lt;h1&gt;Diplomatic Immunity for Consulates as Employer&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The ECJ had to decide on July 19, 2012 (re C-154/11 Ahmed Mahamdia v Algeria) whether a consulate may hide behind its diplomatic status to enslave their employees.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<content type="html">&lt;div class=&quot;feed-description&quot;&gt;&lt;h1&gt;Diplomatic Immunity for Consulates as Employer&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The ECJ had to decide on July 19, 2012 (re C-154/11 Ahmed Mahamdia v Algeria) whether a consulate may hide behind its diplomatic status to enslave their employees.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</content>
		<category term="Labor Law News: Termination" />
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Employer Tolerated Significant Damages for Months - Now too Late to Fire</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1472-employer-tolerated-significant-damages-for-months-now-too-late-to-fire"/>
		<published>2011-01-02T11:58:13+01:00</published>
		<updated>2011-01-02T11:58:13+01:00</updated>
		<id>https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1472-employer-tolerated-significant-damages-for-months-now-too-late-to-fire</id>
		<author>
			<name>AvE</name>
			<email>hi@lg2g.info</email>
		</author>
		<summary type="html">&lt;div class=&quot;feed-description&quot;&gt;&lt;h1&gt;Employer Tolerated Significant Damages for Months - Now too Late to Fire&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Read all about the misery of Lufthansa subsidiary LSG Sky where an employee caused around € 2,500 damages and yet they still lost the case in the Labor Court of Frankfurt / Main (judgment of September 24, 2010, re 24 Ca 1697/10).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<content type="html">&lt;div class=&quot;feed-description&quot;&gt;&lt;h1&gt;Employer Tolerated Significant Damages for Months - Now too Late to Fire&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Read all about the misery of Lufthansa subsidiary LSG Sky where an employee caused around € 2,500 damages and yet they still lost the case in the Labor Court of Frankfurt / Main (judgment of September 24, 2010, re 24 Ca 1697/10).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</content>
		<category term="Labor Law News: Termination" />
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>European Court of Justice Knocks down German Rules for Firing</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1348-european-court-of-justice-knocks-down-german-rules-for-firing"/>
		<published>2010-01-24T15:30:19+01:00</published>
		<updated>2010-01-24T15:30:19+01:00</updated>
		<id>https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1348-european-court-of-justice-knocks-down-german-rules-for-firing</id>
		<author>
			<name>AvE</name>
			<email>hi@lg2g.info</email>
		</author>
		<summary type="html">&lt;div class=&quot;feed-description&quot;&gt;&lt;h1&gt;European Court of Justice Knocks down German Rules for Firing&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Persons employed can be happy about the latest judgment of ECJ of January 19, 2010 (re C-555/07). This is at least true for persons under the age of 26.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<content type="html">&lt;div class=&quot;feed-description&quot;&gt;&lt;h1&gt;European Court of Justice Knocks down German Rules for Firing&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Persons employed can be happy about the latest judgment of ECJ of January 19, 2010 (re C-555/07). This is at least true for persons under the age of 26.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</content>
		<category term="Labor Law News: Termination" />
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Firing for € 1.30 reasonable though 30 years employed</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/805-firing-for-130-reasonable-though-30-years-employed"/>
		<published>2009-03-13T08:29:00+01:00</published>
		<updated>2009-03-13T08:29:00+01:00</updated>
		<id>https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/805-firing-for-130-reasonable-though-30-years-employed</id>
		<author>
			<name>AvE</name>
			<email>hi@lg2g.info</email>
		</author>
		<summary type="html">&lt;div class=&quot;feed-description&quot;&gt;&lt;h1&gt;Firing for € 1.30 reasonable though 30 years employed&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Normally, a strong suspicion suffices to terminate a labor contract. In Berlin, a lady was fired because she allegedly embezzled deposit vouchers valuing €1.30 that were left behind. The LAG Berlin was called to decide on the reasonability of this decision (February 24, 2009, re 7 Sa 2017/08). This decision was heatedly discussed in the German media.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<content type="html">&lt;div class=&quot;feed-description&quot;&gt;&lt;h1&gt;Firing for € 1.30 reasonable though 30 years employed&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Normally, a strong suspicion suffices to terminate a labor contract. In Berlin, a lady was fired because she allegedly embezzled deposit vouchers valuing €1.30 that were left behind. The LAG Berlin was called to decide on the reasonability of this decision (February 24, 2009, re 7 Sa 2017/08). This decision was heatedly discussed in the German media.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</content>
		<category term="Labor Law News: Termination" />
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Immediate Termination Threats Against Life and Limb? Not Without Proof</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1123-immediate-termination-threats-against-life-and-limb-not-without-proof"/>
		<published>2009-03-19T17:20:46+01:00</published>
		<updated>2009-03-19T17:20:46+01:00</updated>
		<id>https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1123-immediate-termination-threats-against-life-and-limb-not-without-proof</id>
		<author>
			<name>AvE</name>
			<email>hi@lg2g.info</email>
		</author>
		<summary type="html">&lt;div class=&quot;feed-description&quot;&gt;&lt;h1&gt;Immediate Termination Threats Against Life and Limb? Not Without Proof&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Some employees surely deserve to be fired. Especially when they threaten to batter their employer. Does it just suffice that the employer alleges that the employee threatened him? The LAG Düsseldorf decided on August 21, 2008 on this issue (re 5 Sa 240/08).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<content type="html">&lt;div class=&quot;feed-description&quot;&gt;&lt;h1&gt;Immediate Termination Threats Against Life and Limb? Not Without Proof&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Some employees surely deserve to be fired. Especially when they threaten to batter their employer. Does it just suffice that the employer alleges that the employee threatened him? The LAG Düsseldorf decided on August 21, 2008 on this issue (re 5 Sa 240/08).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</content>
		<category term="Labor Law News: Termination" />
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>May Employers Give the Order: &quot;Off to Retirement!&quot; </title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1433-may-employers-give-the-order-off-to-retirement"/>
		<published>2010-12-14T18:17:13+01:00</published>
		<updated>2010-12-14T18:17:13+01:00</updated>
		<id>https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1433-may-employers-give-the-order-off-to-retirement</id>
		<author>
			<name>AvE</name>
			<email>hi@lg2g.info</email>
		</author>
		<summary type="html">&lt;div class=&quot;feed-description&quot;&gt;&lt;h1&gt;May Employers Give the Order: &quot;Off to Retirement!&quot;&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When you have turned 65, still feel young enough to work, and still want to work, can it be that your employer gives you the order &quot;Off to retirement!&quot;? After going through the whole hierarchy of domestic labor courts, this question was brought to ECJ. This court correctly worded the order if or if not &quot;off to retirement&quot; with its judgment of October 12, 10 2010 (re C-45/09).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<content type="html">&lt;div class=&quot;feed-description&quot;&gt;&lt;h1&gt;May Employers Give the Order: &quot;Off to Retirement!&quot;&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When you have turned 65, still feel young enough to work, and still want to work, can it be that your employer gives you the order &quot;Off to retirement!&quot;? After going through the whole hierarchy of domestic labor courts, this question was brought to ECJ. This court correctly worded the order if or if not &quot;off to retirement&quot; with its judgment of October 12, 10 2010 (re C-45/09).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</content>
		<category term="Labor Law News: Termination" />
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Must Extraordinary Notice Come on Time</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1309-must-extraordinary-notice-come-on-time"/>
		<published>2009-11-18T15:17:48+01:00</published>
		<updated>2009-11-18T15:17:48+01:00</updated>
		<id>https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1309-must-extraordinary-notice-come-on-time</id>
		<author>
			<name>AvE</name>
			<email>hi@lg2g.info</email>
		</author>
		<summary type="html">&lt;div class=&quot;feed-description&quot;&gt;&lt;h1&gt;Must Extraordinary Notice Come on Time&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;How long can an employer wait until he terminates an employment without prior notice? Is there a period at all? The LAG Rhineland-Pfalz answered this question on April 17, 2009 (re 6 Sa 709/08) in its judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<content type="html">&lt;div class=&quot;feed-description&quot;&gt;&lt;h1&gt;Must Extraordinary Notice Come on Time&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;How long can an employer wait until he terminates an employment without prior notice? Is there a period at all? The LAG Rhineland-Pfalz answered this question on April 17, 2009 (re 6 Sa 709/08) in its judgment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</content>
		<category term="Labor Law News: Termination" />
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Terminating Employment Because your German is Insufficient?</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1377-terminating-employment-because-your-german-is-insufficient"/>
		<published>2010-04-08T12:54:29+02:00</published>
		<updated>2010-04-08T12:54:29+02:00</updated>
		<id>https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1377-terminating-employment-because-your-german-is-insufficient</id>
		<author>
			<name>AvE</name>
			<email>hi@lg2g.info</email>
		</author>
		<summary type="html">&lt;div class=&quot;feed-description&quot;&gt;&lt;h1&gt;Terminating Employment Because your German is Insufficient?&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Günther fired his employee extraordinarily because his employee lacked sufficient knowledge of German. &lt;span&gt;Can that be? Outrageous, isn't it? The Federal Labor answered this question for us with its judgment ofJanuary&lt;/span&gt; 28, 2010 (re 2 AZR 764/08).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<content type="html">&lt;div class=&quot;feed-description&quot;&gt;&lt;h1&gt;Terminating Employment Because your German is Insufficient?&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Günther fired his employee extraordinarily because his employee lacked sufficient knowledge of German. &lt;span&gt;Can that be? Outrageous, isn't it? The Federal Labor answered this question for us with its judgment ofJanuary&lt;/span&gt; 28, 2010 (re 2 AZR 764/08).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</content>
		<category term="Labor Law News: Termination" />
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Who Must Sign a Notice to Terminate Employment?</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/781-who-must-sign-a-notice-to-terminate-employment"/>
		<published>2009-02-05T17:10:26+01:00</published>
		<updated>2009-02-05T17:10:26+01:00</updated>
		<id>https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/781-who-must-sign-a-notice-to-terminate-employment</id>
		<author>
			<name>AvE</name>
			<email>hi@lg2g.info</email>
		</author>
		<summary type="html">&lt;div class=&quot;feed-description&quot;&gt;&lt;h1&gt;Who Must Sign a Notice to Terminate Employment?&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The BAG (re 2 AZR 162/04 of April 21, 2005) recently delivered an important judgment for employees on how jobs are to be terminated. A partnership of dentists gave notice to an employee that was only signed by two of the three dentists. Above the typed name of the third dentist there was no signature. The letter did not mention that the third dentist was to be represented by the other two dentists. The employee filed a suit for continued employment and won in the final instance at the Federal Labor Court.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<content type="html">&lt;div class=&quot;feed-description&quot;&gt;&lt;h1&gt;Who Must Sign a Notice to Terminate Employment?&lt;/h1&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The BAG (re 2 AZR 162/04 of April 21, 2005) recently delivered an important judgment for employees on how jobs are to be terminated. A partnership of dentists gave notice to an employee that was only signed by two of the three dentists. Above the typed name of the third dentist there was no signature. The letter did not mention that the third dentist was to be represented by the other two dentists. The employee filed a suit for continued employment and won in the final instance at the Federal Labor Court.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;</content>
		<category term="Labor Law News: Termination" />
	</entry>
</feed>
