21,000+

lawyers & professionals

200+

companies & organizations

3,500+

questions / day

1st place

FinQuest 2025

Legal research & drafting in minutes, not hours

Your specialized AI legal partner with fully up-to-date Greek and European legislation and references in every answer.

Start for free Book a free demo

no credit card · free usage allowance

Legal research

services_agreement.pdf

I represent an employee with many years of service whose open-ended employment contract was terminated shortly after his return from sick leave, following a heated disagreement with management over overtime work. I would like you to examine whether the dismissal can be held void as abusive or retaliatory, under Greek law and the relevant case law.

Analysis: Voidness of an Employment Contract Termination as Abusive or Retaliatory

1. Legal Basis – Rules and Provisions

A. The non-causal nature of the termination

Termination of an open-ended contract of dependent employment is a unilateral, non-causal juridical act — that is, its validity does not depend on the existence or the soundness of the reason for which it is given. This follows from art. 669 par. 2 CC. However, the non-causal nature does not mean that the termination is beyond review.

B. Art. 281 CC – Abuse of right

Under art. 281 CC, «the exercise of a right is prohibited where it manifestly exceeds the limits imposed by good faith, by morality, or by the social or economic purpose of the right». A breach of art. 281 CC entails absolute voidness of the termination, which is treated as never having taken place, pursuant to art. 174 and 180 CC.

C. Art. 350 Labour Code (PD 62/2025)

Under art. 350 of the Labour Code, termination of an open-ended contract of dependent employment by the employer is void where it:

Is due to discrimination or retaliation on grounds of sex, race, political beliefs, etc.

Is made in reaction to the employee’s exercise of a lawful right.

Contravenes another special statutory provision.

Of particular importance is the express provision that a termination is void where it concerns employees who refuse to provide overtime work (art. 350 par. 1(γιε)) or who did not consent to an arrangement of working time (art. 350 par. 1(γιδ)).

In addition, par. 2 of the same article provides that the termination, as well as any other equivalent measure, is prohibited and void where it is made in reaction to the employee’s exercise of a lawful right.

D. Art. 66 Law 4808/2021 (corresponding provision)

Art. 66 of Law 4808/2021 contains identical provisions, which were codified in art. 350 of the Labour Code.

2. Criteria of Abusiveness

The case law of the Supreme Court (AP) has established settled criteria for reviewing the abusiveness of a termination. These elements are analysed as follows:

A. When a termination is deemed abusive

A termination is abusive where it is dictated by base motives that do not serve the purpose of the right. In particular, according to settled case law (AP 430/2025, AP 725/2020, AP 329/2015, AP 679/2014):

Where it is due to animosity, hatred or enmity.

Where it is made out of revenge, as a consequence of prior lawful but unwelcome conduct of the employee towards the employer.

Where it is made on economic-technical grounds that are pretextual and conceal hatred, animosity or malice.

Where the economic-technical grounds are genuine, but the selection of those dismissed was not made on objective criteria (service-related or social).

B. When a termination is NOT deemed abusive

Where there is no apparent or true cause, since, owing to the non-causal nature, no justification is required (AP 430/2025, AP 725/2020).

Where its true motive is the employee’s defective performance of duties or breach of contractual obligations, because the relationship of trust is then shaken (AP 430/2025, AP 679/2014).

An objectively unjustified termination (without serious grounds) is not, without more, abusive, because otherwise the non-causal act would be converted into a causal one (AP 725/2020).

C. Burden of proof

The employee bears the burden of pleading and proving the specific facts by reason of which the exercise of the right of termination manifestly exceeds the limits of art. 281 CC (AP 430/2025, AP 725/2020, AP 277/2016). The employer’s assertion that the termination was made not for the reasons stated by the employee but for others constitutes a reasoned denial and not an objection. Failure by the employer to prove the reasons it invokes does not affect the existence of an abusive dismissal (AP 430/2025).

However, under art. 350 par. 2 of the Labour Code, where the termination is made in reaction to the exercise of a lawful right, employees may request the employer to state the reasons for the dismissal in writing, which may ease the employee’s evidentiary position.

3. Application to the Facts of the Case

In the case under examination, the critical elements that may establish abusiveness or retaliation are the following:

A. Chronological sequence of events

The termination took place immediately after the return from sick leave and following a heated disagreement with management over overtime matters. The temporal proximity between the employee’s lawful conduct (asserting rights relating to overtime, taking sick leave) and the termination is a strong indication of retaliation, in line with the case law.

B. The overtime dispute as the exercise of a lawful right

Claiming proper remuneration or refusing unlawful overtime work constitutes the exercise of a lawful right. Under art. 350 par. 1(γιε) of the Labour Code, the termination of employees who refuse to provide overtime work is expressly void. Even if the dispute did not concern, in itself, a refusal of overtime but rather overtime matters more generally (e.g. remuneration, recording), the termination, as a reaction to the exercise of a lawful right, becomes void under par. 2 of the same article.

The case law accepts that a termination is abusive where it is made «out of revenge, as a consequence of prior lawful but unwelcome conduct of the employee towards the employer» (AP 725/2020, AP 801/2022). Asserting rights arising from the employment contract is a classic instance of such lawful conduct (AP 801/2022: a claim for full remuneration to appear in the payroll records established abusiveness).

C. The long length of service

The employee’s long-term employment, combined with the absence of prior disciplinary or performance issues, reinforces the argument that the termination is not justified on objective grounds but conceals retaliatory motives.

D. The sick leave

Taking sick leave is a lawful right of the employee. A termination immediately after the return from it, especially combined with the overtime dispute, reinforces the retaliatory character.

4. Counter-arguments and Limitations

The employer is expected to raise the following:

A. Reasoned denial: The employer may argue that the termination was made not for the reasons alleged by the employee but on objective grounds (e.g. defective performance of duties, economic-technical reasons). Under the case law, this constitutes a reasoned denial (AP 430/2025).

B. Defective performance of duties: If the employer proves that the true motive for the termination was defective performance of duties, the termination is not deemed abusive (AP 430/2025, AP 679/2014). In decision AP 430/2025, the employer succeeded in proving that the dismissal was due to low sales performance, negative appraisals and failure to meet targets.

C. Non-causal nature: The mere absence of an apparent cause does not automatically render the termination abusive. The employee must affirmatively prove the facts establishing abusiveness (AP 725/2020).

Rebuttal:

In the case under examination, the existence of a specific chronological sequence (dispute → sick leave → dismissal) does not leave a gap in cause but affirmatively indicates a retaliatory motive. The case law accepts that a termination that follows immediately after the assertion of rights is a strong indication of abusiveness.

5. Procedure and Evidence

A. Critical evidence

Written correspondence (e-mails, letters) documenting the overtime dispute and the chronological sequence.

Medical certificates and sick-leave attestations.

Form E6 – Termination of employment contract: Under Circular 36542/2019, following Law 4623/2019 a statement of valid grounds is no longer required on the E6; nevertheless, the absence of any justification, combined with the other elements, reinforces the argument of retaliation.

Witness statements from colleagues aware of the dispute and the circumstances.

Appraisals and service records demonstrating satisfactory performance over the course of the long service.

Labour Dispute Report from the Labour Inspectorate, if a relevant complaint was filed.

Request to disclose the reasons for the dismissal under art. 350 par. 2 of the Labour Code: the employer’s refusal or incomplete answer reinforces the employee’s evidentiary position.

B. Procedural course

An action before the competent Single-Member Court of First Instance (with territorial jurisdiction at the employer’s seat or the place of work), seeking:

A declaration that the termination is void.

Payment of wages for the employer’s default (art. 656 CC).

Monetary compensation for moral harm (where the conditions are met).

Time limit: An action for voidness on grounds of abusiveness (art. 281 CC) must be brought within a three-month preclusive time limit from the termination (art. 6 par. 1 Law 3198/1955), as also confirmed by CoA Piraeus 443/2024.

Interim measures: The possibility of seeking the provisional regulation of the situation (e.g. provisional re-employment or payment of wages) under art. 731-732 CCP, where an urgent need is established.

6. Outcomes – Legal Consequences

If the termination is held void:

It is treated as never having taken place (art. 174, 180 CC).

The employer, by not accepting the employee’s services, falls into default and is liable to pay default wages (art. 656 CC), without the employee being obliged to actually render work (AP 725/2020, AP 329/2015).

The employee is entitled to monetary compensation for moral harm, where the abusive dismissal injured his personality.

The employment contract is deemed to continue in force.

Conclusion

In this particular case, the coincidence of three elements — (a) the heated overtime dispute (exercise of a lawful right), (b) the taking of sick leave (a lawful right), and (c) the temporal proximity of the termination immediately after the return — creates a strong framework for establishing abusiveness under art. 281 CC and voidness under art. 350 of the Labour Code. The success of the action depends critically on the strength of the evidence establishing the link between the employee’s lawful conduct and the employer’s decision to terminate.

Court Decisions

AP 430/2025

AP 725/2020

AP 801/2022

AP 329/2015

AP 679/2014

AP 277/2016

CoA Piraeus 443/2024

Legislation

Art. 281 CC, Abuse of right (Gov. Gazette A' 164/1984)

Art. 350 Labour Code (PD 62/2025), Protection against dismissals (Gov. Gazette A' 121/2025)

Art. 66 Law 4808/2021, Protection against dismissals (Gov. Gazette A' 101/2021)

Circulars

Circular 36542/2019

Ask a question about Greek or European law…

Trusted by

Teams from leading companies, law firms and public sector organizations

as well as 200+ companies and organizations across Energy, Financial Institutions, Advisory & Audit Services, Industry, Technology and the Public Sector

Measurable momentum

The market's trust, in numbers

lawyers & professionals use it

legal questions answered

legal documents drafted

hours savedi

Capabilities

All your legal work, in one platform

Legal Research

Ask in natural language and get a well-documented answer, with citations to applicable legislation and relevant case law.

Up-to-date Greek & European legislation

Case law from national & European courts

Citations to official sources for instant verification

Coverage of all areas of law

Try it

New capabilities

Continuous evolution. New capabilities.

New

Extended Analysis

Analyze complex legal matters in depth. dikaio.ai leverages multiple sources, correlates legislation and case law and delivers a complete, well-documented analysis — not just a brief answer.

Try it →

New

Next-generation Document Drafting

The most advanced document drafting capability in dikaio.ai, with fuller structure, more precise legal terminology and adaptation to the applicable legislative framework.

75,000+ documents demonstrate our users' trust.

Try it →

Solutions

For every form of legal work

From individual lawyers to the legal teams of companies and organizations, dikaio.ai adapts to your needs and workflows.

Lawyers & law firms

Speed up your legal work and spend your hours where they add value.

Faster and well-documented legal research with source citations

Drafting of pleadings, contracts and other legal documents

Coverage of every area of law

Start for free →

Corporate legal teams

Respond promptly to the requirements of a constantly evolving regulatory environment.

Tracking regulatory obligations and compliance requirements (DORA, NIS2, AI Act)

Contract review, revision and drafting

Shared knowledge and credit usage at the team level

See Business →

Public sector & agencies

Support legal research, documentation and decision-making with access to reliable sources of law.

Access to up-to-date legislation

Citations to the Gov. Gazette & case law

Data exclusively within the EU

Book a demo →

dikaio.ai for business

One platform for your whole legal team

Chosen by leading companies, law firms and public sector organizations, including Karatzas & Partners and Motor Oil.

Book a demo for your team See Business plans

Central management of many users through a unified admin panel

Shared credit pool with per-user allocation

Policy and settings management at the organization level

Unified billing

Roles, access permissions and distinct workspaces

Integration with OneDrive/SharePoint, Google Drive [coming soon]

Reports dashboard with CSV export

The difference

Why dikaio.ai and not a generic AI tool?

dikaio.ai

Generic AI chatbots

Up-to-date Greek & European legislation

Case law with citations to Greek & European courts

Citations to official sources of legislation & case law

Drafting with Greek legal terminology & structure

Data exclusively in the EU, no AI training on your data

Read the dikaio.ai vs ChatGPT comparison on the blog →

Security & trust

Your data, under your control

Data encryption

Your data is protected with encryption at every stage.

Your data is stored in the EU · GDPR

Data processed and stored exclusively within the EU, with no use of your data to train AI models.

No AI training

Your data is never used to train artificial-intelligence models.

What they say about dikaio.ai

Our users' experiences

“I've used dikaio.ai twice to look into a legal matter (once for labor law and once for a property tax issue). Both times it nailed it 100% and I got my work done in literally a few minutes. It's killer — try it.”

Nikos Moraitakis

CEO · Workable

“When you expand into a new market, you need more than simple legal advice — you need a second brain working alongside you. dikaio.ai saves me hours of research by delivering fast, reliable and actionable legal insights, letting me focus on growth instead of getting lost in legal complexity.”

Athina Pitta

Country Manager Greece · Base.com

“Amazing app — it has significantly cut time and cost on complex legal matters and document drafting. Also a very handy tool for an entrepreneur who wants some quick first answers before doing a deep-dive with their legal team.”

Antonis Prentzas

CEO · Finloup

“dikaio.ai is a valuable aid for searching and processing legal data. Thanks to it, we've improved the efficiency of our research and reduced the time required.”

Katerina Christodoulou

Founding Partner · Your Legal Partners

“We explored dikaio.ai and were impressed by its progress, as it gave satisfactory results across a range of prompts we put to it.”

Andriana Diplari

KM Systems Director · Zepos & Yannopoulos

“With dikaio.ai, our legal research has become more modern and organized. The tool lets us pinpoint critical legal issues with high accuracy.”

Nikolaos G. Michos

Criminal Lawyer

“Thank you so much for creating dikaio.ai! An incredibly useful tool, tailored to the conditions and realities of today!”

Antonis Zachariadis

Attorney

“Thanks to dikaio.ai, I can quickly and reliably search legislation and case law to resolve complex issues related to education and research.”

Lefteris Vamvakaris

University Administrator

Distinctions

Our innovation is recognized

1st place

FinQuest 2025 Champions

1st place at Alpha Bank's FinQuest 2025 Innovation Day, among leading AI solutions in the financial sector.

Winners

Endeavor – OpenAI Accelerator 2026

Selected among the top AI teams of the Endeavor–OpenAI Accelerator 2026.

Finalist

NBG Seeds 2026

Finalist in the NBG Seeds 2026 innovation competition by the National Bank of Greece.

Backed by

Supported by leading organizations and innovation programs.

Pricing

Start for free

Free

Try research and drafting with a free usage allowance — no credit card.

Start for free

Popular

PRO

Extensive legal research, drafting and advanced capabilities for the professional.

See PRO

Business

Central management, a shared credit pool and advanced collaboration tools for your entire legal team.

Book a demo

Enterprise

Tailored to the high demands of large organizations — deployment options, integrations, SLA & a dedicated Account Manager.

More use, more value. Up to 3–4× more credits compared to comparable market subscriptions.

See full pricing →

FAQ

What you need to know about dikaio.ai

It's the AI legal partner for Greek and European law. It answers legal questions with citations to sources, finds legislation and case law, and drafts legal documents — drastically cutting research and drafting time.

Every answer is grounded in official, primary sources and comes with citations to the Government Gazette, legislation and case law, so you can verify each claim instantly. The database is updated daily. dikaio.ai is a powerful support tool — the final legal judgment always rests with the professional.

From official, primary sources: the Government Gazette, Greek and European legislation, and case law from Greek and European courts — updated daily.

Your data is encrypted and stored exclusively within the EU, in full GDPR compliance. It is never used to train AI models.

It covers all the main areas — civil, criminal, administrative, commercial, labor, tax and more — at both the Greek and European level.

Start for free, with no credit card, using a free usage allowance. You can also book a short demo for your team.

Multi-user management from a central admin, a shared credit pool with per-user allocation, policy management, unified billing, roles & permissions, integration with corporate files (OneDrive/SharePoint, Google Drive) [coming soon] and a reports dashboard with CSV export.

Ready to get started?

Discover how dikaio.ai speeds up legal research and document drafting

Start for free Book a free demo

no credit card · free usage allowance

21,000+ professionals have already saved 350,000+ hours