Do I have to repay training costs to my employer?

In principle, the following applies: if the employment contract does not contain a repayment clause, then further training costs and further training costs, which were taken over by the employer, can not be reclaimed by the employer. If the contract contains a repayment clause, but this is ineffective, there is also no repayment obligation. Therefore, only in the case of an effective repayment clause is a repayment possible at all.

A repayment agreement in the employment contract is basically a so-called general business condition (AGB) and must therefore be measured against the extremely narrow audit standard of §§ 305 ff. BGB. This means that a repayment clause is regularly ineffective if it unduly penalizes the employee.

Criterion 1: As an employee, do I benefit from the training?

According to the case-law, an effective repayment clause presupposes that the employee gains a monetary advantage through training. This is the case, for example, if the employee can not only use the training / further education with his current employer, but the additional qualification generally offers the employee general benefits and additional career opportunities in the general labor market. Accordingly, an effective repayment clause is excluded if the training offers only a so-called "internal benefit", ie serves merely to refresh existing knowledge or to adapt this knowledge to special operational circumstances. The Federal Labor Court, for example, has rejected a cost share of an employee in the cost of a language course for work abroad, because the language course served in the view of the court rather the training for the job abroad than the training of the employee.

Criterion 2: When is there still a reasonable period of commitment?

How long the employer may contractually bind an employee to his company after further training depends in particular on the duration of the training, since the duration of the training is the decisive indicator of the quality of the training. For example, case law has determined that a training period of up to one month without concurrent work in the company justifies a commitment period of up to 6 months, with a training period of up to 2 months a commitment period of up to one year is possible and with a training period of eg 6 months up to one year is even allowed a binding period of up to 3 years. Basically, however, the times for the duration of the binding are based on the circumstances of the individual case and can therefore not be considered in absolute terms.

Criterion 3: Is there a reason for repayment?

The employee must have it in his own hands not to be obliged to repay. Therefore, the decisive factor is whose sphere gives rise to the reason for the termination of the employment relationship during the period of commitment. Simply put, if the employment relationship is terminated by the employer, eg for operational reasons, there will be no repayment obligation, as the termination reason can not be attributed to the employee. An effective repayment clause must necessarily contain such a differentiation, otherwise the clause is ineffective!

Criterion 4: Is my refund clause transparent?

In the repayment clause, the costs to be reimbursed must be stated in terms of reason and amount. A general formulation such as "reimbursement of costs incurred in continuing education / training" is not sufficient for the transparency requirement and has the effect that the entire clause is ineffective.

Criterion 5: Is the repayment amount too high?

Employers can reclaim a maximum of the amount they have paid themselves. However, the repayment clause must also be regulated in such a way that the amount of the repayment obligation of the employee decreases over time. This is usually achieved by reducing the repayment burden by a corresponding amount or percentage per month's retention of the employee in the workplace.