#HRNOTES 41

In its judgment of 23 September 2026, Case No. 21 Cdo 3223/2024, the Supreme Court followed up on the July judgment of the Constitutional Court, Case No. I. ÚS 970/25, and changed its previous approach to wage compensation in cases of invalid termination of employment.

Earlier case law was based on the premise that if, following an invalid termination of employment, an employee applies for an early old-age pension and such pension is granted, it may generally be inferred that the employee is no longer ready and willing to work for the employer. From that moment onwards, the employee was therefore no longer entitled to wage compensation under Section 69(1) of the Labour Code.

However, the Constitutional Court rejected such an automatic conclusion in its recent decision. According to the Court, an application for early retirement may indeed indicate that the employee no longer wishes to continue working, but the employee’s actual intention and the reasons for retiring must always be taken into account. Early retirement may, in fact, serve merely as a means of securing income during a period in which the employer does not assign work following an invalid termination of employment.

The Supreme Court has therefore now expressly concluded that the mere granting of an early old-age pension does not automatically exclude entitlement to wage compensation. What will be decisive is whether the employee actually intended to leave working life or whether the employee remained ready and willing to work. Relevant factors may include, for example, the employee’s further work activity, job-seeking efforts, or other circumstances indicating that the employee wished to remain economically active.

The practical conclusion for employers is that the mere receipt of an early old-age pension will no longer suffice as an argument for the loss of entitlement to wage compensation. In any dispute, it will be necessary to assess the specific circumstances and the employee’s actual attitude towards continuing to work.