German employment law distinguishes between two kinds of dismissal: the ordentliche Kündigung (ordinary dismissal), which respects a notice period, and the außerordentliche Kündigung (extraordinary dismissal, also called fristlose Kündigung), which ends the employment immediately. The legal standards, deadlines, and consequences differ significantly — and the difference often determines whether a dismissal survives in court.
Ordinary dismissal — the standard case
An ordinary dismissal terminates the employment at the end of the applicable notice period. The minimum notice period for the employer is set in § 622 BGB and lengthens with your years of service:
- 0–2 years: 4 weeks to the 15th or end of month
- 2+ years: 1 month to the end of month
- 5+ years: 2 months to the end of month
- 8+ years: 3 months to the end of month
- 10+ years: 4 months to the end of month
- 12+ years: 5 months to the end of month
- 15+ years: 6 months to the end of month
- 20+ years: 7 months to the end of month
Your contract or collective agreement may grant you a longer period (typically for senior roles or in TVöD-governed public-sector employment), in which case the longer period applies. Contractually shortened notice for the employer below the statutory minimum is invalid.
If the Kündigungsschutzgesetz applies (more than 6 months tenure, employer with more than 10 staff), the ordinary dismissal must additionally be socially justified under one of three headings:
- Operational reasons (betriebsbedingt) — the role has been eliminated and there is no other comparable position.
- Personal reasons (personenbedingt) — you have permanently lost the ability to perform the work (typically long-term illness).
- Behavioural reasons (verhaltensbedingt) — you have repeatedly breached duties, usually after at least one written warning (Abmahnung).
Extraordinary dismissal — the high-stakes exception
An extraordinary dismissal under § 626 BGB ends the employment immediately, without notice. It is reserved for cases where it is unreasonable to expect the employer to continue the relationship even until the end of the notice period. The threshold is high.
Typical examples accepted by the courts:
- Theft from the employer or from colleagues, even of low-value items.
- Physical violence at the workplace.
- Serious fraud (forged expense reports, fictitious sick notes).
- Gross insubordination after a clear instruction and a prior warning.
- Repeated, blatant breach of confidentiality (e.g., sending customer lists to a competitor).
- Severe harassment of colleagues.
- Working for a direct competitor during the employment relationship.
- Lying about material facts at hire (Anfechtung wegen arglistiger Täuschung as the parallel route).
Two procedural rules trip up most employers:
Quick comparison
| Ordinary | Extraordinary | |
|---|---|---|
| Notice period | Yes (§ 622 BGB) | None — effective immediately |
| Statutory basis | KSchG (after 6 months) | § 626 BGB |
| Deadline for employer to act | None (employer may dismiss any time on valid grounds) | 2 weeks from learning the facts |
| Typical grounds | Operational, personal, behavioural | Theft, violence, gross insubordination, severe breach of trust |
| Sperrzeit on benefits | None (by itself) | Yes, 12 weeks — unless dismissal is held void |
| Wages during notice | Yes | None |
| Warning required | For behavioural grounds, yes | For most behavioural grounds, yes |
| Filing deadline for employee | 3 weeks (§ 4 KSchG) | 3 weeks (§ 4 KSchG) |
The combined dismissal („hilfsweise ordentlich”)
Many German employers issue an extraordinary dismissal „supplementarily as an ordinary dismissal” (hilfsweise ordentlich). The idea: if the labor court does not accept the extraordinary grounds, the ordinary dismissal still ends the relationship at the end of the notice period — usually with a more modest severance.
Both dismissals must be challenged within the same three-week window. In court, we attack both:
- The extraordinary dismissal usually fails because the threshold of § 626 BGB is high and the procedural requirements (2-week window, warning) are often defective.
- If the extraordinary dismissal is held void, attention shifts to the ordinary dismissal — which is judged against the KSchG standards.
In our practice, 80%+ of combined cases settle with the extraordinary basis dropped and the parties resolving on an ordinary basis with notice pay and severance.
Quick test for extraordinary cause
Before treating an alleged ground as sufficient for extraordinary dismissal, the courts ask three questions:
- Is the breach so serious that continuing the relationship is unreasonable even until the end of the notice period (Interessenabwägung)?
- Could a warning have addressed it instead?
- Was the dismissal issued within two weeks of the employer learning the facts?
If any answer is „no”, the extraordinary dismissal almost certainly fails. We routinely use these three tests to attack employer pleadings.
Consequences of an extraordinary dismissal — beyond the employment end
An extraordinary dismissal triggers consequences beyond the immediate loss of the job:
- Sperrzeit of 12 weeks on unemployment benefits (§ 159(1) Nr. 1 SGB III) — unless the dismissal is held void in court.
- No notice pay. You receive no salary from the dismissal date forward.
- Reference letter risk. An extraordinary dismissal often results in a worse Zeugnis if the employer prevails.
- Reputation risk. The reason for the extraordinary dismissal (if publicly known) can damage future employment prospects in the same industry.
- Possible criminal exposure if the alleged ground (theft, fraud) is also a crime.
This is why challenging an extraordinary dismissal is almost always worthwhile — even when the underlying facts are partly true. The labor-court settlement typically converts the dismissal into an ordinary one, restores the notice pay, neutralises the Sperrzeit, and negotiates a clean Zeugnis.
The Anhörung — when the employer must hear you first
For some categories of extraordinary dismissal — particularly those based on suspicion (Verdachtskündigung) — the employer must give you an opportunity to respond before issuing the dismissal (Anhörung). Failure to hear you out makes the suspicion-based dismissal void. The Anhörung requirement does not apply to dismissals based on proven facts, but the line is blurry and we often challenge on this basis.
Worked example
Daniel, a financial controller at a mid-sized company, is accused of expense-report fraud (allegedly submitting two duplicate receipts for the same dinner over a year). He receives an extraordinary dismissal on a Friday, „hilfsweise ordentlich”. His salary is €8,500/month, 7 years tenure.
We file the Kündigungsschutzklage within 5 days. In the case:
- The employer learned of the alleged fraud 4 weeks before issuing the dismissal — outside the § 626(2) 2-week window. The extraordinary dismissal is void.
- Daniel was not heard before the dismissal — Anhörung defect for the suspicion-based claim.
- No prior warning. For a behavioural ground that could have been addressed by warning + a payment plan, the dismissal-as-last-resort principle (ultima ratio) was not respected.
- The Sozialauswahl on the fallback ordinary dismissal was not done.
Result at the Gütetermin: settlement with the extraordinary dismissal converted to an ordinary one, full notice pay (3 months × €8,500 = €25,500), severance of €30,000 (0.5 × monthly × 7 years × adjusted), Grade-3 reference. Sperrzeit avoided. Total package: ~€60,000 plus benefits. Without the legal challenge, Daniel would have walked away with nothing and a 12-week Sperrzeit.