<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!-- generator="Joomla! - Open Source Content Management" -->
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>on Termination</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Expat's Concise Guide to Overcome Officialdom in Germany and so smoothly integrate into Germany to stay on the right side of the law]]></description>
		<link>https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Feb 2025 12:08:29 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>Joomla! - Open Source Content Management</generator>
		<atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination?format=feed&amp;type=rss"/>
		<language>en-gb</language>
		<item>
			<title>Diplomatic Immunity for Consulates as Employer</title>
			<link>https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1578-diplomatic-immunity-for-consulates-as-employer</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1578-diplomatic-immunity-for-consulates-as-employer</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<div class="feed-description"><h1>Diplomatic Immunity for Consulates as Employer</h1>
<p>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.</p></div>]]></description>
			<author>hi@lg2g.info (AvE)</author>
			<category>Labor Law News: Termination</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 06:48:10 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Employer Tolerated Significant Damages for Months - Now too Late to Fire</title>
			<link>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</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">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</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<div class="feed-description"><h1>Employer Tolerated Significant Damages for Months - Now too Late to Fire</h1>
<p>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).</p></div>]]></description>
			<author>hi@lg2g.info (AvE)</author>
			<category>Labor Law News: Termination</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 02 Jan 2011 11:58:13 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>European Court of Justice Knocks down German Rules for Firing</title>
			<link>https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1348-european-court-of-justice-knocks-down-german-rules-for-firing</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1348-european-court-of-justice-knocks-down-german-rules-for-firing</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<div class="feed-description"><h1>European Court of Justice Knocks down German Rules for Firing</h1>
<p>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.</p></div>]]></description>
			<author>hi@lg2g.info (AvE)</author>
			<category>Labor Law News: Termination</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:30:19 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Firing for € 1.30 reasonable though 30 years employed</title>
			<link>https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/805-firing-for-130-reasonable-though-30-years-employed</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/805-firing-for-130-reasonable-though-30-years-employed</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<div class="feed-description"><h1>Firing for € 1.30 reasonable though 30 years employed</h1>
<p>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.</p></div>]]></description>
			<author>hi@lg2g.info (AvE)</author>
			<category>Labor Law News: Termination</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 08:29:00 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Immediate Termination Threats Against Life and Limb? Not Without Proof</title>
			<link>https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1123-immediate-termination-threats-against-life-and-limb-not-without-proof</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1123-immediate-termination-threats-against-life-and-limb-not-without-proof</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<div class="feed-description"><h1>Immediate Termination Threats Against Life and Limb? Not Without Proof</h1>
<p>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).</p></div>]]></description>
			<author>hi@lg2g.info (AvE)</author>
			<category>Labor Law News: Termination</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:20:46 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>May Employers Give the Order: &quot;Off to Retirement!&quot; </title>
			<link>https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1433-may-employers-give-the-order-off-to-retirement</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1433-may-employers-give-the-order-off-to-retirement</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<div class="feed-description"><h1>May Employers Give the Order: "Off to Retirement!"</h1>
<p>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 "Off to retirement!"? 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 "off to retirement" with its judgment of October 12, 10 2010 (re C-45/09).</p></div>]]></description>
			<author>hi@lg2g.info (AvE)</author>
			<category>Labor Law News: Termination</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 2010 18:17:13 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Must Extraordinary Notice Come on Time</title>
			<link>https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1309-must-extraordinary-notice-come-on-time</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1309-must-extraordinary-notice-come-on-time</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<div class="feed-description"><h1>Must Extraordinary Notice Come on Time</h1>
<p>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.</p></div>]]></description>
			<author>hi@lg2g.info (AvE)</author>
			<category>Labor Law News: Termination</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:17:48 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Terminating Employment Because your German is Insufficient?</title>
			<link>https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1377-terminating-employment-because-your-german-is-insufficient</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/1377-terminating-employment-because-your-german-is-insufficient</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<div class="feed-description"><h1>Terminating Employment Because your German is Insufficient?</h1>
<p>Günther fired his employee extraordinarily because his employee lacked sufficient knowledge of German. <span>Can that be? Outrageous, isn't it? The Federal Labor answered this question for us with its judgment ofJanuary</span> 28, 2010 (re 2 AZR 764/08).</p></div>]]></description>
			<author>hi@lg2g.info (AvE)</author>
			<category>Labor Law News: Termination</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:54:29 +0200</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Who Must Sign a Notice to Terminate Employment?</title>
			<link>https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/781-who-must-sign-a-notice-to-terminate-employment</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.lg2g.info/legal-news-on/news-on-labor-law/on-termination/781-who-must-sign-a-notice-to-terminate-employment</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<div class="feed-description"><h1>Who Must Sign a Notice to Terminate Employment?</h1>
<p>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.</p>
</div>]]></description>
			<author>hi@lg2g.info (AvE)</author>
			<category>Labor Law News: Termination</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:10:26 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
