Article

-Law 5053/2023, Article 17: "Protection from dismissal and burden of proof – Amendment of Article 339 of the Individual Labour Law Code (Article 18 of Directive (EU) 2019/1152)" & Article: 18, "Sanctions – Addition of Article 74C to the Code of Individual Labour Law (Article 19 of Directive (EU) 2019/1152)." -Law 4808/2021, Article: 66, 'Protection from dismissals', as amended by Law 5053/2023, Article17: 'Protection from dismissal and burden of proof - Amendment of Article 339 of the Individual Labour Law Code (Article 18 of Directive (EU) 2019/1152)' -Law 4611/2019, Chapter VI: Provisions concerning the labour inspectorate’s organisation: Article 60 Classification of labour law infringements; Article 62 Penalties in the event of opposition to inspections by the labour inspectorate. -Law 3996/2011, Chapter D: Sanctions: Article 28, par. 4: Penal Sanctions

Description

By virtue of article 17: "Protection from dismissal and burden of proof – Amendment of Article 339 of the Individual Labour Law Code (Article 18 of Directive (EU) 2019/1152)" The termination of an open-ended employment contract by the employer is deemed null and void if it is carried out as a reaction to the employee exercising a lawful right derived from the provisions that incorporate Directive (EU) 2019/1152 into Greek law. According to this amendment (Article 17, subparagraph 1a) the termination of an open-ended employment contract by the employer, or any other equivalent measure used in place of termination, is prohibited and void if it is carried out in response to the exercise of a lawful right by the employee arising from Articles 1A, 69 to 74B, 182A, and 189. Employees who believe that the termination of their contract was for this reason may request the employer to disclose the reasons for their dismissal. In such cases, the employer is obliged to respond in writing and with proper justification.

By virtue of article 18: "Sanctions – Addition of Article 74C to the Code of Individual Labour Law (Article 19 of Directive (EU) 2019/1152)" it is foreseen that in the Individual Labour Law Code (Presidential Decree 80/2022, Government Gazette A’ 222), after Article 74B, Article 74C is added as follows:

"Article 74C – Sanctions For every violation of Articles 1A, 69 to 74B, and Articles 182A and 189 of this Code, sanctions shall be imposed on the employer following a prior invitation to provide explanations, in accordance with the terms of Article 24 of Law 3996/2011 (Government Gazette A’ 170)." Sanctions, in the form of administrative fines, can be imposed up to 50,000 EUR per violation.

In previous years, if a dismissal was found invalid by Court, the employer had to re-employ the dismissed employee and pay wages in arrears for the interim period. By virtue of article 66: Protection from dismissals, Law 4808/19.06.2021:

1. The termination of the indefinite-term dependent labour contract by the employer is invalid if:
2. it is due to discrimination against the employee, or as a retaliation based on sex, race, colour, political opinion, religious or philosophical beliefs, descent, national or ethnic origin, sexual or sexual orientation, age, gender identity or characteristics, disability, or membership or not in a trade union;
3. it is done as a reaction to exercising a legal right of the employee;
4. contravenes another special provision of the law, in particular when it comes to dismissal (i.e. due to exercise of rights in case of violence and harassment, pregnant, lactating women, as well as the father of the new born, during annual leave, trade union officials, members of workers' councils, the members of the special negotiating team, the European Works Council and the representatives of the employees, who exercise their duties in the context of the procedure for the information and consultation, when there is no compelling reason for, etc.).

1.a. Employees who consider that the termination of the contract by the employer is a reaction to exercising their legal right, may request notification of the reasons for the dismissal from their employer. In this case, the employer is obliged to respond in writing and document it.

1. If the employee proves before a Court, facts capable of supporting the belief that the dismissal was made for one of the reasons in paragraphs 1 and 1a, it is up to the employer to prove that the dismissal was not made for the stated reason.

2. If the dismissal is for a reason other than the ones of par. 1 and 1a, the Court shall instead of any other consequence upon request of either the employee or the employer, award in favour of the employee an amount of additional compensation, which cannot be less than three months' regular wages nor more than twice the legal compensation due to termination at the time of dismissal. The request is submitted by the employee or by the employer at any stage of the trial, in the first or second instance of jurisdiction. When determining the amount of additional compensation, the court takes into account, in particular, the intensity of the employer's fault and the property and financial situation of the employee and the employer.

3. The employee who pleads a defect in the complaint, according to par. 1 and 1a, is entitled to request, instead of the recognition of the nullity of the complaint and the occurrence of the consequences of the nullity, the award of additional compensation.

4. If the conditions of paragraph 3 of article 5 of Law 3198/1955 (A' 98) [termination of the employment relationship is considered valid, as long as it has been made in writing, the due compensation has been paid and the employment of the dismissed person has been registered in the payroll maintained for the I.K.A (Social Insurance Foundation -now EFKA) or the dismissed person has been insured] were not met during the termination of the dependent labour contract, and with the exception of the payment of the severance pay, the validity of the termination is asserted, as long as the employer cover the formal omission within a period of one month from the service of the relevant action or from the submission of a request to resolve a labour dispute. In the event that the fulfilment of the specific conditions is done after the above deadline, this fulfilment is considered as a new complaint and the previous one as non-existent. When the amount of the compensation falls short of the amount of the legal compensation, due to an obvious error or reasonable doubt as to the basis of its calculation, the invalidity of the termination is not recognised, but the completion of the termination compensation is ordered.

In the event of non-compliance with the legislation, labour authorities can declare collective dismissals null and void, and severance payments may be required for dismissed workers. 'Collective dismissal' refers to dismissals affecting more than 6 employees in companies with 20 to 150 employees and to those affecting 5% of the workforce or 30 employees in companies with more than 150 employees. There are no specific provisions for non-compliance with dismissal regulations relating to cases of individual dismissals. No specific provision is in place to enable employees to take action against non-compliance: the same regulation applies as in any other case of termination of employment. The criteria according to which administrative penalties are imposed are the following: the seriousness of the offence; any repeated non-compliance with the instructions of the competent bodies; any similar offences for which penalties have been imposed in the past; the degree of fault; the number of employees; the size of the undertaking; the employment regime; the number of employees affected; the inclusion of the undertaking in one of the categories (for example, agriculture, transport, storage and communication, metal mining, electricity, gas and steam) provided for under article 10 of Law 3850/2010 (OJHR A 84). In cases where obstruction of inspection takes place, may it be false data provision or denied entry to the premises, such shall be punished by imprisonment of at least one year or by a fine of at least €900 or both these penalties. A decision of the Minister of Labour, Social Security, and Social Solidarity shall categorise the violations, specify the criteria, determine the method of calculating the amount of the fine, and provide for cases where the amount of the fine may be adjusted.

Commentary

The aim of Law 5053/2023 is to modernise and align Greek labour legislation with EU Directive 2019/1152, focusing on: * strengthening worker protections in flexible and unpredictable forms of employment (e.g., part-time, on-demand, multiple jobs) * enhancing transparency of working conditions, requiring employers to provide timely and clear information about employment terms * ensuring fair treatment and prevent unjustified dismissals, especially for employees exercising legal rights * introducing digital monitoring (e.g., Digital Work Card, ERGANI II) for better compliance and labour inspections.

Law 4808/2021 brought about the most drastic change in labour relations in recent decades with radical changes in the law of dismissal. In previous years, if a dismissal was found invalid by Court, the employer had to reemploy the dismissed employee, and pay wages in arrears, for the interim period. With article 66: * the right of the employee to keep his job in case of illegal and especially invalid dismissals is practically limited to certain only cases (when the dismissal is due to adverse discrimination, when it is retaliatory, and when the prohibition or invalidity is specifically recited by law). In any other case, that is, in any case of abusive termination, the employer can bring the cure of the invalidity, which occurs in principle, by paying compensation due to faulty (illegal) dismissal ("amount of additional compensation").{The amount of additional compensation will vary from three months' wages up to twice the statutory compensation due to termination at the time of dismissal. This additional compensation is, by its legal nature, different from legal dismissal compensation (Law 2112/1920, Law 3198/1955). The Law does not subject it directly to the deadlines of Article 6 of Law 3198/1955 (any employee's claim arising from a void termination of the employment relationship is deemed inadmissible, as long as the relevant action was not notified within a three-month disruptive period from the termination of the employment relationship. This provision applies only to the termination of employment relationships). The employee has the same right, instead of invoking the nullity and the consequences of lateness, in any case, i.e. even when the defect in the notice does not allow the remedy of nullity at the initiative of the employer}; * the dismissal carried out without observing the general formal conditions of its validity (article 5, par. 3, Law 3198/1955) is included in the cases of par. 1, of article 66, with the consequence that the employee retains the job. {This applies absolutely when the employer does not comply with the standard conditions regarding the payment of the due compensation. The nullity remains irremediable in this case as well. With regard to the observance of the other two general formal conditions of article 5, par. 3, of Law 3198/1955 (document form and insurance of the dismissed), the employer is given the possibility of curing the invalidity by covering the formal omission within one month of the delivery of a relevant lawsuit or the submission of a request for a labour dispute. If the formal defect is covered after the impractical expiration of the above deadline, this filling is considered as a new complaint, and the previous invalid one is considered as non-existent}; * finally, article 66, par. 2, of Law 4808/2021, as amended by article 17, of Law 5053/2023 entails a reversal of the burden of proof. If a dispute occurs, due to an employee's dismissal on grounds of a requested or received leave, or flexible regulation, and/or exercised relevant rights, the employee needs to cite facts, before a Court, for being dismissed due to one of the prohibited reasons. In this case, the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal is due to reasons other than the ones prohibited.

Only a few cases have been brought for non-compliance. However, decision no. 1070/2010 of the Supreme Court is very important. According to this decision, the sanction provided by Law 1387/1983 in article 6, stating that 'collective dismissals made in violation of the provisions of the law are void', is the most appropriate and effective measure to prevent the employer from non-observance of the procedure for collective dismissals.

Additional metadata

Cost covered by

Employer

Involved actors other than national government

Court Other

Involvement (others)

Labour Inspectorate, Greek Ombudsman, Employers - Employees or representatives

Thresholds

Affected employees: 7
Company size: 20
Additional information: No, applicable in all circumstances

Sources

• Law 2736/1999
• Law 2874/2000
• Law 1387/1983
• Decision no. 1070/2010 of the Supreme Court
• Law 4611/2019
• Law 3996/2011
• Supreme Court Decision 1070 / 2010
• Law 5053/2023
• KEPEA, New Labour Law 4808/2021
• Law 5053/2023
• Law 5053/2023