The Thuringia Higher Labor Court (Landesarbeitsgericht) clarified in a recent decision dated October 6, 2026 (Case No. 1 Sa 362/25) when a judgment on the papers is permissible. For employees seeking to enforce outstanding claims such as unpaid wages, vacation pay, or work documents after the end of their employment, this is an important signal.
The case shows how important it is to assert claims promptly and correctly — and that a court may not simply decide without an oral hearing when the procedural requirements are not met. We explain what the decision means and how you should proceed.
What the Thuringia Higher Labor Court Ruling Means for Employees
The decision of the Higher Labor Court (LAG) strengthens the position of employees who litigate outstanding claims after a dismissal. The court clarified that a judgment without an oral hearing — also known as a decision on the papers — may only be issued under strict conditions. In the specific case, the Suhl Labor Court had issued such a judgment even though only a conciliation hearing had taken place, without the parties having filed motions.
The LAG classified this approach as procedurally flawed. At the same time, it dismissed the employer’s appeal because the error was not so fundamental that the judgment had to be set aside and the case remanded. The appellate court was able to decide the matter itself and reached the same result as the labor court. For you as an employee, this means: even if a court makes a procedural error, your claim can still be enforced.
Judgment on the Papers: When May the Court Decide Without an Oral Hearing?
A judgment on the papers is a decision that a court renders without conducting an oral hearing. The legal basis is Section 251a of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), which applies mutatis mutandis in labor law via Section 46(2) of the Labor Court Act (ArbGG). Under this provision, the court may decide without an oral hearing if both parties consent or if one party fails to appear and the other requests a decision.
Crucially, the court may only issue such a judgment after a proper contested hearing has taken place — that is, after the plaintiff has filed motions. The mere conduct of a conciliation hearing, in which the judge seeks to broker a settlement, is insufficient. In the conciliation hearing, no motions are filed; the sole purpose is to explore an amicable resolution. Without the filing of motions, the foundation for a decision on the papers is missing.
Why a Conciliation Hearing Without Motions Is Not Enough
Labor court proceedings have two phases: first, a conciliation hearing takes place in which the judge attempts to reach an agreement between the parties. Once the plaintiff then files the claim motions, the proceedings enter the contested hearing phase. Only after that can the court render a judgment — including a decision without an oral hearing. The LAG has now clarified that a judgment on the papers may not be issued if only the conciliation hearing without motions has taken place.
The reason is obvious: without motions, it is unclear what the court is supposed to decide. The subject matter of the dispute has not yet been sufficiently concretized. A decision without an oral hearing presupposes that the parties have presented their positions on the merits and the court can decide on that basis. If this presentation is missing because no contested hearing occurred, the judgment is inadmissible.
The Claims in the Specific Case: November Salary, Vacation Pay, and Work Papers
In the decided case, an employee had been employed from May to November 2024. The gross monthly remuneration amounted to 4,300 euros, consisting of a base salary of 3,600 euros and a performance allowance of 700 euros. The employment contract provided for 30 vacation days per year. It also contained a forfeiture clause requiring claims to be asserted within three months.
After the employment relationship ended, the plaintiff demanded payment of the November salary, compensation for unused vacation, and issuance of work papers in a letter dated February 19, 2025. The employer did not respond. The employee then sued at the Suhl Labor Court, seeking 4,300 euros gross for November 2024 and 2,976.90 euros gross for 15 vacation days. The vacation pay was calculated at 198.46 euros per day (12,900 euros divided by 13 weeks divided by 5 days) multiplied by 15 vacation days.
The labor court upheld the claim without holding an oral hearing — it issued a judgment on the papers. The employer appealed, arguing the procedure was flawed. The LAG upheld the decision and dismissed the appeal. It found that the judgment had indeed been procedurally inadmissible because no motions had been filed, but that this defect did not require remand. The appellate court could decide the matter itself, which it did, dismissing the appeal as unfounded.
What Employees Should Watch For Now: Deadlines, Evidence, and Forfeiture Clauses
The case illustrates how critical it is to meet deadlines and substantiate claims. The forfeiture clause in the employment contract can cause claims to lapse if you do not assert them in time. In this case, the plaintiff had asserted his demands in writing within the three-month period — only thus could the claims survive.
Employees should therefore examine immediately after a dismissal or termination which claims they have: outstanding salary, vacation pay, overtime compensation, employment reference, work papers. These claims must be asserted with the employer within the contractual or statutory deadlines — ideally in writing with a deadline. Retain all evidence, such as the employment contract, payslips, and correspondence with the employer.
An unfair dismissal claim may also be relevant if you wish to challenge the termination. The deadline for this is three weeks after receipt of the notice. An overview is available in our guide to unfair dismissal claims.
How to Secure Your Claims After the Employment Relationship Ends
To enforce your claims, proceed systematically. First, demand in writing that the employer pay the outstanding amounts by a specific date. Set a deadline of two to three weeks. If the employer does not respond, the path to the labor court remains open. A payment claim need not necessarily be pursued by an attorney, but legal advice is advisable to avoid mistakes.
Note that forfeiture periods often apply to the assertion of salary claims and vacation pay — not only the contractual forfeiture clause but also the statutory limitation period. The latter is generally three years but can be shortened by forfeiture clauses. If you are unsure, consult a specialist attorney for labor law. More on enforcing salary claims after dismissal can be found in our article Back Pay After Termination.
In the proceedings themselves, watch for procedural pitfalls. The LAG confirmed that such a judgment is only admissible after proper motions have been filed. Do not be discouraged if your first-instance judgment was flawed. The appellate court can decide the case itself and help you obtain your rights.
Litigation Funding: Who Bears the Cost Risk of a Lawsuit?
A lawsuit before the labor court involves costs: court fees, attorney fees, and potentially the opposing party’s costs if you lose. Many employees therefore hesitate to litigate their claims. This is where litigation funding can help. As a litigation funder, we review your case and, if prospects are good, cover the costs of the proceedings — you bear no financial risk.
Important to know: RechtStark is not a law firm and does not employ attorneys. We fund your lawsuit if the chances of success are strong. Legal advice and representation are provided by an independent specialist attorney for labor law. We cover attorney and court costs if your case succeeds — otherwise you owe us nothing. This allows you to enforce your claims without existential fear.
The decision of the Thuringia Higher Labor Court gives employees tailwind: it confirms that even procedural errors do not extinguish your substantive claim. If you still demand money or work papers after a dismissal, have your claims reviewed. Whether it concerns salary, vacation, or other entitlements — with the right support you can enforce your rights.
Note: This article is for general information purposes only and does not replace individual legal advice. For a free initial assessment of whether litigation funding may be an option for your case, you can contact RechtStark.