Some Comments on the Employer’s Complaint against the Decision to Grant Security in the Form of the Obligation to Continue Employing a Particularly Protected Employee (Article 755(5) of the Civil Procedure Code)

The subject of the article is an analysis of Article 7555 of the Civil Procedure Code, introduced under the Bridging Pensions Act of 2023, which provides for the provision of security in the form of an employer’s obligation to continue employing the employee. In view of the fact that the legislator considered the introduction of this type of security as a guarantee for the fulfillment of the postulate of the permanence of the employment relationship, it is necessary to verify whether Article 7555 of the Civil Procedure Code actually constitutes a “weapon” of employees in the course of ongoing proceedings brought against the employer. For it turns out that the provision in question – introducing, as it were, the granting of such security “automatically” – limits the discretionary power of the judge in this regard and leaves him no choice in the matter. Moreover, the employer’s right as to the possibility of challenging such a provision is also limited, since he can, in principle, only formulate objections to the failure of the court of first instance to declare the employee’s claim as manifestly unfounded. The comments presented in the article lead to the conclusion that the current wording of Article 7555 of the Civil Procedure Code – intended to be a viable instrument for protecting the rights of employees – is an institution that, in extreme cases, can be disadvantageous even to them. “Correction” of the regulation in question, on the other hand, can currently take place only through the application of Article 8 of the Labour Code by the courts, which will by no means ensure the stability and certainty of the application of the security of the claim by ordering the continuation of employment.