For many people, becoming a civil servant is more attractive than other career paths, so it’s a sought-after outcome. However, those who are already employed and then become civil servants need to pay attention to certain points. If a valid employment contract is still in effect, becoming a civil servant does not automatically constitute a justified reason for terminating that contract.
Does Becoming a Civil Servant Create a Right to Justified Termination?
A precedent-setting ruling from the Court of Cassation concerns millions of private-sector employees. According to this decision, employees who leave private-sector jobs because they became civil servants cannot rely on that change of status as a lawful reason for termination. In such cases, the employee who wants to quit will be considered to have accepted the contractual penalties or obligations.
In the case decided by the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, a German teacher employed at a private school and the employer signed an annual contract covering the period from September 1 to August 31. The contract included a clause requiring the teacher to notify the school at least two months before the contract’s expiration if they would not work in the following term. It also stated that if the teacher did not notify and the school wanted to retain them, the contract would automatically renew. The agreement further provided that if the contract was renewed and the teacher did not work in the new academic year or moved to another educational institution, the teacher would pay a contractual penalty equivalent to four months’ net salary without objection. Based on this provision, the school signed a new contract with the teacher on August 11. The day after signing, the teacher submitted a letter to the school administration saying they would work at another institution. The school rejected the resignation letter.
The School Demanded Payment of the Penalty
The school informed the teacher that it would accept their departure only if the teacher paid an amount equal to four months’ net salary. The teacher refused, arguing that only one day had passed since signing the contract and claiming the school was acting in bad faith. The teacher did not pay. The school filed a lawsuit, arguing the teacher failed to meet the two-month notice requirement in the contract and had accepted employment for the new term by signing the renewal, then withdrew shortly before classes began, causing the institution hardship. In its complaint the school explained that recruitment for the following academic year normally takes place in February–March and requires testing; successful candidates are then hired. Because the school could not run its usual recruitment process at that late stage, it sought payment of the contractual penalty to remedy the damage caused.
The Teacher Cited Civil Service Appointment as Justification
In defense, the teacher argued the new academic year had not yet started and that they had achieved a high score on the public personnel selection exam (KPSS), so a civil service appointment was imminent. The teacher asked the school to accommodate this situation, asserting that because work had not yet been carried out in practice, a new employment relationship had not truly formed and the contractual penalty should not be enforced. The teacher also claimed the penalty clause was not fair or balanced between the parties and that a public-sector job offered greater security.
The local court sided with the teacher and rejected the school’s claim for the contractual penalty. However, the Court of Cassation overturned that decision and held that an employee’s subsequent civil servant status cannot be used to invalidate contractual obligations in an employment agreement. The court found that ending the private employment contract on the grounds of becoming a civil servant did not constitute a valid reason for the private school. As a result, the precedent-setting ruling reminds those who hope to become civil servants to carefully review any existing employment contracts and their penalty clauses.